Ronald Steven Federici has often been described as “a leading expert in the neuropsychological evaluation and treatment of children having multi-sensory neurodevelopmental impairments.”

He is best described as a “developmental neuropsychologist,” specializing in the treatment of “institutional autism” (which he also calls “post-traumatic autism,” or “post-institutional autistic syndrome”).

Dr. Federici is licensed by the Virginia Board, and is the holder of a Psy. D. degree.

Dr. Ronald Federici is the author of “Help for the Hopeless Child: A Guide for Families, With Special Discussion for Assessing and Treating the Post-Institutionalized Child” and is the founder of Neuropsychological and Family Practice Associates, in McLean, Virginia.

He has worked with adopted children from Russia, Romania, Ukraine and Belarus. He is also the father to seven adopted children of his own.

Federici is also an outspoken opponent of dangerous practices, such as those resulting in the death of Candace Newmaker. In addition, he has also sought to provide as much assistance as possible to children living in orphanages and other institutions with deplorable conditions.

More information about Dr. Federici and his work can be found at:

http://ronaldfederici.com/

http://ronaldfederici.wordpress.com (Ronald Federici blog)

http://ronfederici.wordpress.com (Ron Federici blog)

http://childrenintherapy.wordpress.com (Children in Therapy)

http://advocatesforchildrenintherapy.wordpress.com (Advocates for Children in Therapy)

http://angelinajolieadoptions.wordpress.com (Angelina Jolie’s adoptions; Dr. Federici is Angelina Jolie’s adoption consultant)

http://developmentsintherapy.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/dr-ronald-federici-advocate-for-children-in-therapy-act/

Ronald Steven Federici is often described as “the country’s expert in the neuropsychological evaluation and treatment of children having multi-sensory neurodevelopmental impairments.”

He is best described as a “developmental neuropsychologist,” specializing in the treatment of “institutional autism” (which he also calls “post-traumatic autism,” or “post-institutional autistic syndrome”).

Dr. Federici is licensed by the Virginia Board, and is the holder of a Psy. D. degree.

Dr. Ronald Federici is the author of “Help for the Hopeless Child: A Guide for Families, With Special Discussion for Assessing and Treating the Post-Institutionalized Child” and is the founder of Neuropsychological and Family Practice Associates, in McLean, Virginia.

He has worked with adopted children from Russia, Romania, Ukraine and Belarus. He is also the father to seven adopted children of his own.

Federici is also an outspoken opponent of dangerous practices, such as those resulting in the death of Candace Newmaker. In addition, he has also sought to provide as much assistance as possible to children living in orphanages and other institutions with deplorable conditions.

More information about Dr. Federici and his work can be found at:

http://ronaldfederici.wordpress.com (Ronald Federici blog)

http://ronfederici.wordpress.com (Ron Federici blog)

http://childrenintherapy.wordpress.com (Children in Therapy)

http://advocatesforchildrenintherapy.wordpress.com (Advocates for Children in Therapy)

http://angelinajolieadoptions.wordpress.com (Angelina Jolie’s adoptions; Dr. Federici is Angelina Jolie’s adoption consultant)

http://developmentsintherapy.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/dr-ronald-federici-advocate-for-children-in-therapy-act/

Dear Dr. Federici:

I’m very sorry that we have not met, but I’d like to introduce myself.  I was a circuit judge in PLACE_REDACTED for 10 1/2 years, and retired on July 1st.  NAME_REDACTED came before me in 2007 when I was assigned to the Juvenile division.  She had been arrested for a minor offense, but the striking part of her first court appearance was her adoptive parents’ position that they would not allow her to return to their home.  NAME_REDACTED was very unstable, very child-like, and I found her situation unbelievably sad.  That court appearance led to many others, and ultimately to the situation we are all dealing with now.

As you might imagine, I have dealt with hundreds (probably thousands) of children, many of whom have very sad, very troubled backgrounds, but none have touched me like NAME_REDACTED.  She is not an easy child to deal with, but no other child in court possessed the kind of background she arrived with:  adopted from PLACE_REDACTED, unadopted by her Virginia family, adopted and unadopted by NAME_REDACTED, institutionalized in Florida, and then disappointed by yet another potential adoptive family.  Unlike most children in court, she has no one, and she is adrift.  From my perspective as the judge handling her case, I received report after report and evaluation after evaluation, but ultimately, little information that I found helpful or particularly on-target.  She was diagnosed with every possible mental illness, over-medicated, admonished by her caretakers to behave properly, chastised for running away, and given little meaningful help.  To the extent that I could intervene, I did, but it was (regrettably) too little too late. To ask a child in her situation to just cease her self-destructive behaviors seemed foolish, and no one was inclined to get to the heart of the problem.

When I made the decision to retire, I did not feel I could just walk away from NAME_REDACTED without doing what I could to help her.  In some respects, my position as a retired judge seemed to provide more flexibility in how I could assist, which has proven correct in many respects.  But nothing has helped NAME_REDACTED’s plight more than your exceptional evaluation.  Your thorough consideration of her background, her present situation, the results of the tests you administered, and your conclusions have provided us with an authoritative, professional, complete, and uniquely insightful evaluation of a complex child.  It is more than a little embarrassing that none of our Florida evaluators could approach the level of professional expertise you possess, but I am very grateful that we found you.  More importantly, I wanted to personally thank you for your generosity and patience with all of us, because I know that we have repeatedly enlisted your assistance in our quest to secure a meaningful placement for NAME_REDACTED.  I also know that you have not been properly compensated by the State of Florida for your expertise or your expenses, and I deeply regret that.  Although it may be of little comfort, I have pledged my personal resources for plane tickets or whatever else proves to be an impediment to try to help NAME_REDACTED; your selfless assistance, however, is of a much greater magnitude.

To advocate for the NAME_REDACTED placement, I have told the highest level bureaucrats that your evaluation is, by far, the best I have seen in my time on the bench, and they have responded very favorably.  I told them that because it is the truth, but you should know how exceptional, and how valuable, it has been in the life of this child.  If we succeed in talking Florida into placing NAME_REDACTED in Virginia, it is without a doubt thanks to you, your professionalism, and your generous expenditure of time.  I know that you may be contacted today during a placement staffing (I will attend with NAME_REDACTED), and I apologize again for imposing yet again on your valuable time, but it will be a crucial event in this process.  I am very grateful that you will consider providing your opinion and insights to the powers-that-be, and I acknowledge the imposition.  Rest assured, however, that your opinion and recommendation carries tremendous weight.

I would, in closing, also note that during my long career as a public servant (30 years!), I have never seen a Guardian Ad Litem work as tirelessly as NAME_REDACTED has on NAME_REDACTED’s behalf.  Were she not as diligent, capable, persistent and dedicated as she is to NAME_REDACTED’s best interests, I do not think Virginia would be an option.  She found you, and for that we are all eternally grateful.  I hope that you understand her tenacious efforts to help NAME_REDACTED are not designed to wear you out or trouble you, but at this point you are our lifeline.  Forgive us both, then, for imposing on your good graces.

Again, thank you Dr. Federici, for everything you have done for NAME_REDACTED.  You are an extraordinary human being.  If there is anything I can ever do for you, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Most sincerely,
NAME_AND_CONTACT_DETAILS_REDACTED

Dr. Ronald Federici has been an active lobbyist on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC for children’s rights and International adoption reform. Consultant to the Department of State, Office of Children’s Services by evaluating children from families serving in the foreign service.

Angel in Adoption Award through US Congressional Appointment Humanitarian, Award-Romanian Department of Child Welfare

Catalyst presents a  documentary from the BBC. ‘Taming the Problem Child’
Haley is five years old, mildly autistic and out of control. She’s one of a growing number of children with severe aggressive behavioural disorders. One minute she is hugging her mother, but seconds later she is biting and punching her. Her aggression towards other children has put her on the verge of being withdrawn from school and her parents are desperate.

Sergei is 12 years old. He is withdrawn, depressed and violent. He was found wandering the streets of St Petersburg at the age of five. Nobody knows what happened to him in those first five years. He was put into a Russian orphanage until he was adopted three years later by an American family. But the only interaction he has with his new family is through rage and physical attacks on his adoptive mother. As with Haley, no treatment, doctor or psychologist has been able to help… until now.

Dr Ron Federici is an American neuro-psychologist who specialises in working with institutionalised children (he has spent a good deal of time in orphanages in Eastern Europe, and has fostered seven of the orphans himself). Federici believes that what disturbed children need most are rules, structure, and a sense of order imposed on confused emotions and he has devised a treatment plan for even the most extreme cases of conduct-disordered children. He claims it is suitable no matter whether their behaviour lies in neurological or psychological problems and that it guarantees two things: firstly, that there will be an 80% rate of improvement in most children; and secondly, that neither the parents nor the children will enjoy the process – quite the opposite, in fact.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie opened their own Maddox Jolie-Pitt Foundation in 2003 to help those in need and to help save our planet.

They donated $1 million to refugees in Pakistan in June. According to tax records, in 2006 alone they donated $8 million to charities. They are true super heroes of the modern world!

Some causes they support include: adoption, AIDS, at risk youth, cancer, disaster relief, the environment, fair trade, homelessness, human rights, missing children, and poverty.

They are great supporters of many charities and the list of charities is always growing.

A few of their charities that they support are: Afghanistan Relief, African Children’s Choir, Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs of Canada, Cure Autism Now, Global Action for Children, Human Rights Watch, plus many more.

Thank you to this couple – today’s modern super heroes – that Passes It On and helps others!

Neuropsychological Evaluation and Rehabilitation of the Post Institutionalized Child

There is controversy regarding assessment and treatment procedures for the post-institutionalized child

July 18, 2007/ Dr. Ronald S. Federici

International adoptions have become prominent worldwide with the United States receiving the largest amount of immigrant visas issued to orphans. Eastern European countries, particularly the former Soviet Union and Romania, have been attracting families from all over the world due to the high volume of available children with desirable ages, ratio characteristics, and the definitive aspect of parental rights termination which has been a subject of recent controversy in the United States. Recently, there have been landmark cases in the United States overturning long-term custody of the adoptive parents due to the resurgent interest of the biological parents years later. In general, families completing international adoptions find the procedures much more expedient and cost effective as opposed to waiting on a list for infants in the United States which can be years of waiting, or the worrisome possibility of adopting an older child who has a clear documented history of abuse and neglect. Another motivation for families moving towards international adoptions has been media presentations worldwide which have highlighted deprived children residing in Eastern European institutions. Thousands of families have flocked to these countries with the hopes of rescuing a child from life-long institutionalization.

Interest in the post-institutionalized child has gained great attention in all medical and psychological disciplines throughout the United States and in the United Kingdom. International adoption clinics have surfaced throughout the United States following pioneering efforts by Dana Johnson, M.D., Ph.D. of the University of Minnesota, International Adoption Clinic; and Laurie Miller, M.D., Director of the International Adoption Clinic at the Floating Hospital for Children in Boston, Massachusetts. As there has been a significant increase in the amount of internationally adopted children coming to the United States (up nearly 130% since 1990), the need for international adoption medical specialists has surfaced. Specialists from all disciplines of pediatrics and developmental psychology have been on the forefront of evaluating internationally adopted children of all ages. Research has shown the long-term neuropsychological and neurocognitive status of these children can often present a challenge to adoptive families as the “hidden disabilities” of the effects of institutionalization may not surface until the child is of school age.

Post-institutionalized children have been exposed to a volume of high risk pre and post-natal factors such as poor maternal care, malnutrition, fetal alcohol exposure, smoking, neurotoxins, infections, prematurity, low birth weight, and a host of other potential complications. Goldfarb (1943), Bowlby (1951) and Spitz (1945) have clearly defined the effects of institutionalization or “hospitalism” as being strong contributing factors to later neurocognitive and emotional problems, particularly bonding and attachment deficits. Johnson (et.al., 1997) along with numerous medical researchers have intensely researched the health status of children from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and have further documented the high risk factors which may impact later cognitive, learning and emotional performance. Rutter (1998) discusses developmental catch-up and deficits following adoptions after severe global early deprivation and finds a strong tendency towards resilience and short-term catch-up in the younger child group (adoptions completed prior to 25 months). Rutter goes on to explain that global cognitive improvement over the long course of time is still an unknown factor in many of the Romanian adoptees who have been exposed to high risk factors.

There is controversy regarding assessment and treatment procedures for the post-institutionalized child. Many professionals believe that the effects of institutionalization and deprivation will spontaneously abate and a “wait and see” is adopted in addition to the ideology that parents should “give the child time to adjust” as opposed to implementing aggressive assessment or premature diagnoses of handicapping cognitive or emotional conditions. Federici (1998) has emphasized the importance of immediate and aggressive neuropsychological and neurodevelopmental evaluations for all children, particularly the older post-institutionalized child who may present with very prominent behavioral and adjustment difficulties, whereas the child under the age of 24 months requires time to re-stimulate and reattach. Evaluations in the child’s native language are of paramount importance. Many families worldwide are adopting children greater than 4 years of age and often find the child very challenging from the first day of adoption although may have been advised by various professionals or agency personnel that there needs to be this “adjustment period” and a family system emphasizing intensive stimulation, love and bonding in order to promote “developmental catch up” and normal family adjustment.

Given the research and current understanding regarding the damaging effects of institutionalization and the numerous high risk medical factors which may lead to neurocognitive and emotional delays and deficits, the need for aggressive neurodevelopmental and neuropsychological assessment of impairments followed by aggressive neurocognitive and psychological rehabilitation appears to be a necessary inter-vention for children coming from profoundly depriving backgrounds. While long-term follow up regarding the internationally adopted child are still being gathered, early information strongly suggests both neuropsychological and emotional sequalae of institutionalization for a large percentage of children being adopted at an age greater than 4 years. While many children appear to have been unscathed as the result of institutionalization, Johnson (1997) suggests that children who have resided in institutional care become a high risk population. Early intervention programs appear to be a critical factor in promoting optimal development and recovery from institutional damage although many “delays” may be chronic and static in nature.

Presented at the Conference for Children and Residential Care

Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Federici,

Thank you for faxing her testing results.  We interviewed two Christian schools and enrolled in one we feel will be of significant help to her.  We feel this new school will pray for her and work towards her total healing.  She will also be enrolled in their NILD and other helpful programs there.

Since your work with her, I’ve felt she’s had a peace I haven’t seen before.  We are glad you were able to help her open up about the abuse she suffered while living with her birth family.  Whatever happened during your working with her about that evidently brought great release for her.

Sincerely,

Scraps and impressions from Tuesday’s game.

The reaction to the Middlesbrough game was predictable; the reaction to this match has been both confused and confusing. Some are so keen to reassure themselves that they are talking-up an average performance into something it definitely wasn’t. Others dug themselves in so deep after last Saturday’s loss that our failure to despatch a poor Reading team is further evidence that Sousa isn’t up to it. I thought we deserved to win, but equally we never really looked like scoring. Yes, even when we won the penalty…

Mark Gower: I was, um, surprised that he took the pen, but there weren’t too many obvious alternatives. The miss has surely destroyed any benefits gained from his pre-season goal scoring exploits, and he disappeared for the rest of the game. So, still no competitive goals and the minority who booed him off the pitch aren’t really going to help matters.

Reading: They looked really poor, and, on this evidence, they will struggle this year. Any Premier League aura that they had left with Coppell, Doyle and Hunt. However, goalkeeper Adam Federici put in an incredible performance saving the penalty and denying Tate in the second half with one of the best saves I have ever seen.

Kerry Morgan: Striker-turned-winger Morgan had a decent debut. But because he’s Welsh his effectiveness has been greatly exaggerated by those who desperately want him to be the next Allen. He did get in behind the right-back on a number of occasions in the second half but that was almost always from a ball over the top rather than him taking on the defender. When one-on-one he seemed to panic and was frequently muscled off the ball. Having said that, he wasn’t afraid to shoot when the opportunity presented itself and that can’t be said for quite a few of the team.

A Dodgy Substitution: Dobbie was the best player on the pitch but needed support; the crowd was calling (in a muted way) for Gorka ‘The Bull’ Pintado to be brought on, but when he finally was it was Dobbie that made way (to his obvious displeasure). It was a frustrating and baffling switch and even lead to a shout of ‘What are you playing at, Jackett?’ from a few rows behind me. Still, in Sousa we trust etc…

Ronald Steven Federici is often described as “the country’s expert in the neuropsychological evaluation and treatment of children having multi-sensory neurodevelopmental impairments.”

He is best described as a “developmental neuropsychologist,” specializing in the treatment of “institutional autism” (which he also calls “post-traumatic autism,” or “post-institutional autistic syndrome”).

Dr. Federici is licensed by the Virginia Board, and is the holder of a Psy. D. degree.

Dr. Ronald Federici is the author of “Help for the Hopeless Child: A Guide for Families, With Special Discussion for Assessing and Treating the Post-Institutionalized Child” and is the founder of Neuropsychological and Family Practice Associates, in McLean, Virginia.

He has worked with adopted children from Russia, Romania, Ukraine and Belarus. He is also the father to seven adopted children of his own.

Federici is also an outspoken opponent of dangerous practices, such as those resulting in the death of Candace Newmaker. In addition, he has also sought to provide as much assistance as possible to children living in orphanages and other institutions with deplorable conditions.

More information about Dr. Federici and his work can be found at:

http://ronaldfederici.wordpress.com (Ronald Federici blog)

http://ronfederici.wordpress.com (Ron Federici blog)

http://childrenintherapy.wordpress.com (Children in Therapy)

http://advocatesforchildrenintherapy.wordpress.com (Advocates for Children in Therapy)

http://angelinajolieadoptions.wordpress.com (Angelina Jolie’s adoptions; Dr. Federici is Angelina Jolie’s adoption consultant)

Dr. Ronald Federici and  Ms. Heather Forbes are nationally and internationally known  professionals in this field.

Yet, unlike other professionals  you have trusted for advice, both Federici and Forbes have both  been in the trenches and in your shoes. They know the  struggles, chaos, and pain children with trauma histories bring into a home environment.

Dr. Federici is the father of seven internationally adopted  children and Ms. Forbes is the mother of two internationally adopted children. They know firsthand that academic research alone offers nothing when your child is melting down and out-of-control.

Learn from the best. Isn’t it time to stop wasting money and invest your time, money, and emotional wellbeing into real answers and effective solutions? How much have you spent in the past on testing and evaluations, family services, play therapy, individual therapy, family therapy, occupational therapy, and the list goes on…

So many children have been misdiagnosed or mislabeled. Psychiatry has taken a very bad turn to “quick fixes” via medications and unconventional or worthless therapies. We need to have the most qualified and experienced professionals evaluate and treat all children with special needs. fringe advocacy groups, or “disruptors” of the process are often rooted in unprofessional logic, cults, or just plain unprofessionalism and ignorance. Time to really look towards real “experts”.

<DOC>
[106 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:60674.wais]

S. Hrg. 106-257

THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND COOPERATION IN
RESPECT OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION: TREATY DOC. 105-51 AND ITS
IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION S. 682

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

OCTOBER 5, 1999

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-674 CC                    WASHINGTON : 1999

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana            JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia              PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska                CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon              JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota                 RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri              ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
BILL FRIST, Tennessee
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

———-
Page

Cox, Susan Soon-Keum, Vice President, Public Policy and External
Affairs, Holt International Children’s Services…………….    33
Federici, Ronald S., Psy.D., Clinical Director, Psychiatric and
Neuropsychological Associates, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia……    11
Prepared statement…………………………………….    13
Harding, Tomilee, Executive Director, Christian World Adoption
and President, Joint Council on International Children’s
Services……………………………………………….    20
Helms, Hon. Jesse A., U.S. Senator from North Carolina and
Chairman of the Committee………………………………..     1
Holtan, Barbara, M.A., M.S.W., Director of Adoption Services,
Tressler Lutheran Services, York, Pennsylvania……………..    17
Prepared statement…………………………………….    18
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana…………..     6
Prepared statement…………………………………….     7
McDermott, Mark T. Esq., Legislative Chairman, American Academy
of Adoption Attorneys……………………………………    22
Prepared statement…………………………………….    24
Ryan, Mary A., Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Consular
Affairs; accompanied by Jamison Borek, Deputy Legal Advisor,
Department of State……………………………………..     3

Appendix

Additional Material Submitted to the Committee for the Record….    45

(iii)

CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND COOPERATION IN RESPECT OF
INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION: TREATY DOC. 105-51 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING
LEGISLATION S. 682

———-

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1999

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms,
chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Senators Helms
and Smith. Also Present: Senator Landrieu.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JESSE A. HELMS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
NORTH CAROLINA

The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me
personally welcome all of you who are attending this hearing
this morning in addition to the witnesses who appear. It
indicates an interest on your part, which I think is very, very
significant. And I thank you for being here.
Today, the Committee on Foreign Relations will hear from a
distinguished group of experts in the field of international
adoption. The focus will be on the questions of whether the
United States should ratify the Hague Convention on Protection
of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption. And that is a long title for a significant proposed
agreement now pending before our committee, along with
legislation that I introduced, along with Senator Mary
Landrieu, of Louisiana, I think it was last March, to implement
the Treaty.
Now, I am pleased that Senator Landrieu cares about
adoption and is participating in this important hearing. This
distinguished lady Senator from Louisiana and I agree that this
Treaty and legislation must remain linked as we consider
intercountry adoption issues during this 106th Congress.
Recent statistics reveal that in 1998, almost 15,800–
15,774 to be exact–children were adopted by Americans from
abroad. The majority of the children were brought to the United
States from Russia, China, Korea, and Central and South
American countries. And, like many others, I strongly support
adoption and believe international adoption represents a
growing avenue for children without families, let alone
adequate resources, to be given a home by parents who wish to
live with, love, and adopt these children.
However, it is important to bear in mind that health-
related problems from children adopted abroad are increasingly
coming to light, raising questions about the adequacy of
preparation for adoptive parents. And I am convinced that
increased collection of data and analysis of international
adoptions, as called for in S. 682, will surely improve our
understanding of these problems.
Since States regulate domestic adoption, the oversight of
international adoption has been lacking under United States
law. Health problems, including psychological and emotional
trauma, have led to a growing number of parents turning to
health services of private agencies to take custody of their
adopted children. And today’s witnesses will address various
aspects of those problems.
In some instances, parents are not adequately prepared for,
or have not been informed of, the health and emotional issues
of adopted children. Only after adoption do some parents learn
that the children suffer from symptoms of illnesses, such as
fetal alcohol syndrome, particularly in children from the
Soviet Union as it once existed, and now from Russia and the
former Soviet Union.
The Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act, S. 682, is
intended to address some of these problems and bring
accountability to agencies that provide intercountry adoption
services in the United States. It will certainly strengthen the
hand of the Secretary of State, by ensuring that U.S. adoption
agencies operating abroad engage in efforts to find homes for
children in an ethical manner.
Agencies must be accredited to operate under the Treaty,
and will receive accreditation only if they provide health
records to parents, basic instructions for dealing with
previously institutionalized children, and the preparation of
parents for potential health and emotional issues. A secondary
rationale for ratification and implementation of the Treaty is
the ability to preserve international adoption as an option for
parents in the United States.
A number of countries are citing ratification of the Hague
Convention and implementation of its requirements as a
benchmark for permitting adoption agencies to continue
operations in their countries. Some of today’s witnesses will
address the importance of Treaty ratification to ensure
maintenance of their operations.
In any event, the Treaty’s minimal requirements are
intended to provide a framework for ethical operation by
adoption agencies, including the creation of a competent
authority in Treaty countries to oversee international
adoption. Now the competent authority in Senator Landrieu’s and
my bill, S. 682, will be the State Department. Therefore, this
Department will have the final say in the multitude of
questions that surely will arise.
Under our bill, the States, not the Federal Government, the
States, the 50 States, and not the bureaucrats in Washington,
D.C., will continue to oversee domestic adoption. As a result,
S. 682 puts the State Department in the lead, and does not
concede the oversight of international adoption to the
Department of Health and Human Services, as the administration
has requested that we do.
So, State Department consular officials are on the ground,
working with adoption agencies and parents on a daily basis.
And I think they are best able to monitor the activities of
those adoption agencies.
Let us ask the first panel member, the Hon. Mary A. Ryan,
Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Consular
Affairs, to come and sit at the witness table. And you may
proceed, ma’am. We are glad to have you, and appreciate your
coming.

STATEMENT OF MARY A. RYAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU
OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMISON BOREK, DEPUTY LEGAL
ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am really delighted to be here today to
have the opportunity to discuss international adoption and the
1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. With me today
from the Department of State’s Office of the Legal Advisor is
Jamison Borek, the Deputy Legal Advisor, in case you should
have questions that are better answered by an expert attorney.
I would like to thank you personally, Mr. Chairman, for the
interest you have shown in the Convention and in its
implementation. I would also like to commend all the staff who
have worked so diligently on this effort. Both the implementing
legislation you have introduced and the administration’s
proposed legislation were prepared with the best interest of
children in mind. And while there are some difference, there
are many similarities between our two proposals.
The welfare and protection of American citizens is the
State Department’s highest priority. This includes American
parents building families through international adoption, and
American children finding families abroad through international
adoption. We want to ensure that our children are protected
once overseas, and that those brought to our shores and their
adoptive parents are equally protected. These are concerns that
you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Senator Landrieu, have voiced, and
that many Members of Congress share.
The United States, particularly since World War II, has
opened its arms to orphaned and abandoned children around the
world. And many Americans have looked to international adoption
to build American families and to provide a better life for
these children. These families are as diverse as America
itself, including extended families, married couples,
multicultural families, and single-parent households.
Since 1995, more than 98,000 children have been adopted
from South Korea alone. In the 5-year period, 1976 to 1981,
more than 5,000 South American children were adopted by
Americans, almost 80 percent of them from Colombia. Since 1992,
over 15,000 children have come from Russia, 3,900 from
Guatemala, and 11,500 from China. We can only expect the
numbers to increase.
Families throughout the United States have been enriched by
these children who have grown up to become business leaders,
doctors, lawyers, teachers, and community leaders. Some of
these children have devoted their lives to giving children like
themselves a chance to grow up in loving families.
Sadly, however, along with all the positive benefits of
international adoption, I must acknowledge that there have been
some abuses. This fact ultimately prompted 66 countries to
convene in The Hague to prepare a convention to provide
standards for intercountry adoptions which would protect the
children, their birth parents and their adoptive parents.
Intergovernmental negotiations on what became the 1993 Hague
Convention on Intercountry Adoption began in 1991.
The drafters of the Convention believe that a properly
safeguarded international adoption offered a better alternative
for the care of an orphaned or abandoned child than
institutional care in the child’s country of origin. The
Convention was the first international stamp of approval for
the concept of intercountry adoption. It is designed to ensure
that adoptions will take place when they are in the child’s
best interest, and that the abduction and trafficking in
children, and other abuses like that, will be prevented.
In the years before negotiations began, and throughout the
lengthy deliberations, the United States delegation sought
guidance from the adoption community, including adoption
agencies, lawyers, social workers, and adoptive parents.
Representatives from the U.S. adoption community were on our
delegation through preparatory sessions. Following endorsement
by U.S. adoption interests and the American Bar Association,
the United States signed the Convention in 1994.
Since its adoption, 35 countries have either ratified or
acceded to the Convention, and 12 others have signed. This
makes it perhaps the most quickly and enthusiastically accepted
Hague convention in more than the 100-year history of the Hague
Conference.
The Convention requires that certain determinations, such
as adoptability of the child, eligibility to emigrate, parent
suitability and counseling, be made before adoption can
proceed. Every country must establish a national government-
level central authority. Every country must establish a
national government-level process for uniform screening and
authorization of adoption service providers. And certified
Convention adoptions must be recognized in all other party
countries.
The Convention also imposes requirements that protect the
child’s welfare throughout the adoption process. Under the
Convention, a mechanism will be in place to track outgoing
Hague adoption conventions, providing a level of protection
previously unavailable to U.S. children taken abroad for
adoption.
After we signed the Convention, State, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the Department of Health and Human
Services continued to consult with the private adoption
community, with parents, with lawyers, and with other
professionals on the general concepts of the proposed Federal
implementing legislation. The resulting administration bill was
sent to the Congress in June 1998, and submitted once again
with very minor changes in May 1999.
I would like to thank those from the other government
agencies and from the private sector who contributed to this
cooperative effort to create legislation. Both the Helms-
Landrieu bill, S. 682, and the proposed administration
implementing legislation would place the central authority in
the Department of State, where it would be located in the
Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Office of Children’s Issues.
It would task the Department of State and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to develop a case tracking system
for all adoptions of children coming to the United States and
for all Hague adoptions of children leaving the United States.
It would allow the use of private, nonprofit entities to do
peer review and the actual accreditation and approval of U.S.
adoption service providers for intercountry adoptions. And it
would address the funding of the Department of State’s
functions, to ensure that adequate resources exist for the
effective performance of its functions as the central
authority.
There are of course differences in the two bills, one of
which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. And an important difference
is the designation of the agency with responsibility to
establish and to monitor these accreditation and approval of
intercountry, or international, adoption service providers.
We are very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to you,
Senator Landrieu, for the confidence that you have placed in
the State Department. But we really believe that the Department
of Health and Human Services, the Federal Government agency
with relevant experience in evaluating and working with
domestic adoption programs and with social service providers,
is better suited to handle this function than is the Department
of State.
Just as we are concerned for our children who must leave,
or who may leave the United States, in connection with their
adoption, so have other sending countries expressed concern
that their children will be properly protected by adoption
service providers in receiving countries, including in the
United States. In the vast majority of these countries, public
social welfare authorities are responsible for issues regarding
adoption. These authorities and their governments will be
reassured to have the Department of Health and Human Services,
a recognized player in the provision of social services,
charged with the oversight for the accrediting of adoption
service providers for intercountry adoptions.
The world will watch how the United States implements this
Convention and how it protects its children, birth parents and
adoptive parents. Several of the largest source countries have
indicated to us that they are looking to us to ratify and to
implement the Convention quickly, and that they plan to model
their own programs after ours. This latter point is
particularly important as it bears directly on the ability of
American parents to adopt abroad.
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that you and members of this
committee and Senator Landrieu have taken such an interest in
this Convention that will benefit children and their birth and
adoptive parents. Americans adopt more children internationally
than any other countries. Our citizens will benefit the most
from the safeguards of this important Treaty.
We believe it is crucial now that the Senate provide advice
and consent to the United States ratification of the Convention
and that the Congress pass implementing legislation. We are
eager to work with the Congress and the adoption community to
safeguard and to facilitate intercountry adoptions for all of
those qualified, and to bring children and parents together to
bond as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you this morning.
The Chairman. And a very fine statement it is, Madam
Secretary.
We have now been joined by the lady of the hour. And I can
say frankly and honestly that there is nobody in the Senate
whom I admire or respect greater than I do Mary Landrieu. I
know you must have an opening statement, and you may proceed.
By the way, Mary is not a member of this committee, but I
insisted that she come here and act like one.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. She is running this show, really.
You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for all the
treaties pending before this very important committee and you,
our ranking member, and the members of this committee for
taking time this morning to discuss this issue. I want to thank
you for putting the needs of the children in our country and
the world first, and giving us 2 hours this morning to try to
move this process along.
And I want to thank you, Madam Secretary, for your
testimony, and thank you for being so welcoming and generous
when I first arrived to the Senate, in our meeting on this
subject over 2 years ago.
I do have an opening statement; however, I wish to keep my
remarks short, because I am very interested in hearing from the
experts who have come to share their insights with us today.
Mr. Chairman, I have read their testimony in advance of the
meeting; and I would just like to make a few comments that I
think are important in setting the stage for this morning’s
hearing.
To all those following this treaty and its progress, I want
to say that the United States is as interested in our children
being adopted, and recognize that we have many challenges here
in the United States in our domestic adoption arena. This
Congress and administration, have taken extraordinary steps in
the last couple of years to make sure that in our own country,
every child has a home, a loving home, parents to raise them.
We acknowledge in the United States that a home is a much
better setting, or a family, than an institution.
I have been questioned by people in the international
community, asking why are we so focused on international
adoption and not on domestic? I want to make clear that we are
focused on both. In the United States, we not only believe that
every child in the United States deserves a home but also every
child in the world.
Of course, as outlined by The Hague, which is one of the
most wonderful things about it, Mr. Chairman, the first place
to try to find a home for a child would be in their country of
origin. If that is not possible, for whatever reason, then that
child should be allowed to be adopted outside of the country,
as opposed to having them spend their life in a hospital or an
institution. A hospital of institution is not a very good
setting in which to raise a child. No matter how wonderful the
care can be, no matter how good it could be and how well it
could be provided, it is no match to what a family could
provide.
In addition, as the Secretary has mentioned, the other
fundamental goal here is to establish a legal system for the
international community, a system that can be trusted, a system
that can have safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse and
corruption, and exorbitant fees often associated with
international adoption. Such factors are real psychological
barriers and legal barriers to finding a home for every child.
And we have, as you know, Mr. Chairman, because you have
provided a home for one of these children and I have provided
homes for two, millions and millions of children without
families. These barriers most come down in order for the good
people in this room to do the work that I believe God has
called them to do and which they are all doing so well.
And with that said, I am just anxious to hear the testimony
of those who have joined us today. I will end with this. We
know that the bill we have drafted is a good bill. We had a lot
of input on it, and from that input we know it is not perfect.
We hope this morning we will hear some ways that our bill can
be perfected, it can be improved.
We recognize that is the political process, that we can
hopefully improve on this work and come out at the end with the
best document that we can come out with. A bill that will
reduce the barriers, promote international adoption and provide
the safeguards that we all want.
So I thank you very much. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
a more formal statement to submit at the end of the hearing
this morning.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]

Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman, the
ranking member from Delaware and other members of the Foreign Relations
Committee for making room in your busy schedule for this important
hearing. In addition, I would like to personally thank each of the
witnesses here today, who have come to share with us their personal
stories and their expertise in international adoption. I am confident
that their experiences and insights will help us to improve this piece
of legislation. We know that it is not perfect as written, but it is
our hope that we can work together to make it as close to perfect as we
can.
In my office, next to my desk, I keep a copy of a print I am
certain many of you have seen before, which is entitled “priorities.”
It depicts a small child playing in a bed of flowers. Its inscription
reads “one hundred years from now, it will not matter what my clothes
look like, what car I drive, or how much money is in my bank account,
but the world may be a bit better because I made a difference in the
life of a child.” Today, this hearing is about making a significant
difference in the life of not one child but in the lives of millions of
children and families in the U.S. and around the world. It’s about
making sure that the welfare of children is an international priority.
Perhaps, the most significant aspect of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption and its implementing legislation is that it
ensures that a legal system exists in which the best interests of
children are of the utmost priority. Furthermore, for the first time,
the international community has formally acknowledged that a family can
better serve the needs of a child than a hospital or institution.
In crafting Senate Bill 682 as he did, the chairman maintained the
treaty’s focus on the best interest of the child and adapted its
requirements to work in the United States. This was not an easy task.
As many of you know, in the United States, issues of children and
family are primarily dealt with by state law. Therefore, implementation
of the Hague Convention involved more difficult legal political
coordination questions for the United States than for other countries
which have a more legal governmental system.
It is our responsibility, as the delegates at the convention did
before us, to work honestly through our differences in how we believe
each title would be written, and commit ourselves to ratifying this
treaty. Too much time has passed already. The United States has always
been a leader in the protection of human rights and dignity. Yet,
twenty seven other countries have ratified the Hague and nine have
acceded to it. It has been over five years since the U.S. signed the
treaty. We cannot afford any more time to be lost. We must once again
establish ourselves as a leader in this important process.
Our delay in ratifying this treaty has caused other countries to be
concerned when allowing their children to be adopted by our citizens
and understandably so. These countries are entrusting American families
with their most precious resource–their children. As other countries
continue to ratify the Convention, they agree to place children for
adoption only with countries that offer the same protections. Further
delay or failure to ratify and implement the treaty could result in
thousands of American families without the opportunity to adopt from
abroad.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Before we call the next panel, I want you to meet one of
the attorneys of the Foreign Relations Committee. You stated
the understanding on the time. Could you use the microphone and
state that for the record?
Ms. McNerney. Yes sir, when we get to the private panel we
will allow each of the witnesses five minutes to provide
testimony..
The Chairman. But you talked about the red light.
Ms. McNerney. Yes, we will be turning on the light in front
of the chairman. So when it hits red, your 5 minutes are up.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We have to do that because sometimes you run
across people who will go 15 or 20 minutes over time. And that
fractures whatever orders you have made of your agenda up to
then. Thank you very much.
Do you have questions?
Senator Landrieu. No. I am fine.
The Chairman. Well, let me see if I do not have one.
The State Department, I believe you said, currently
oversees intercountry adoptions and assigns caseworkers for
this purpose. Does the Department of Health and Human Services
currently have any responsibility for intercountry adoption?
And I know the answer to that one.
Ms. Ryan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you know the answer to that.
That is no. But they have a network in the United States
already in existence that does accreditation in the health
field. And so they have the experience domestically which we do
not have. We are not a domestic service agency. We are foreign
affairs. And we do foreign affairs. We do not do accreditation
of domestic organizations.
And my concern, Mr. Chairman, is that if this bill passes,
your bill passes, and we get this responsibility, we will do
the best we can to carry it out, but there are opportunity
costs that come into play here. And that is the time it will
take us to gear up to do it, to startup to do it, because we do
not have the experience. So we would have to get people. We
would have to have more staff. And we would have to develop the
experience. And this is going to take time. And that is my
concern–that the time spent doing this could be time that HHS
would be already doing the accreditation, whereas we are
learning how to do it. And that is the problem that I have with
it, sir.
The Chairman. Well, the point I wanted to emphasize, and if
you will pardon the intrusion of the word “baby,” this is the
State Department’s baby and not any other Federal agency–if
the record will show that. At least that is the intent of this
author of the bill.
Will the Convention prohibit improper payments to
government officials anywhere?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, it does, sir.
The Chairman. Such payments, I think there were some under
certain circumstances before, but they were clearly a violation
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
As of August 26th of this year, 26 countries, I believe you
said, had ratified the Convention and nine had acceded to it.
Of the top 20 countries sending orphans to be adopted in the
United States in 1998, only Romania, Colombia, the Philippines,
Mexico, Brazil, and Poland are parties to the Convention; is
that right?
Ms. Ryan. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. The top five countries for adoption, Russia,
China, South Korea, Guatemala, and Vietnam, they have not even
signed the Convention yet, have they?
Ms. Ryan. They have not, sir. It is our belief that they
are waiting to see what we do, and that they are going to
pattern their own development of the mechanisms for the
Convention based on what we are doing.
The Chairman. Well, I certainly hope that is the case. And
as the Treaty takes effect, do you expect that adoptions will
increase in countries that are party to the Convention?
Ms. Ryan. Yes, I believe they will, sir.
The Chairman. And will they decrease among the non-parties?
Ms. Ryan. That is hard to say. I do not know. I really do
not know.
The Chairman. I do not know if there is any way to tell
that except with a crystal ball. And I do not have mine with me
this morning.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Do you believe parents adequately understand
the risk when they travel to areas like the Caucasus?
Ms. Ryan. When they travel to areas like?
The Chairman. To the Caucasus?
Ms. Ryan. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that they
understand the risks. In some cases, we have had some parents,
our Embassy in Moscow has reported to us, that some parents
were actually going to try to go into Chechnya to look for
children. Which is, as you know, there is a state of war
between Russia and Chechnya. And we find that extremely
dangerous.
But what it does show, I think, Mr. Chairman, is the
generosity, the great heartedness of the American people in
going into very risky areas to find children at risk. Every
time that there is a crisis in the world, our Office of
Children’s Issues is inundated with calls from people who want
to know how to adopt the children in that particular country,
whatever country it is. And I can only stand in admiration of
American people who do things like that. I mean it is just
remarkable.
The Chairman. The U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Jim Collins,
sent me a cable the other day. He warned that despite warnings
from the Embassy and a policy to prohibit even State Department
travel to the Chechnya, North Ossetia–I do not even know where
these places are–Dagestan, and Ingushetia–where in the heck
is that?
[Laughter.]
Senator Landrieu. Somebody should know.
The Chairman. Do you know?
Ms. Ryan. No, sir, I do not. I mean it is somewhere in the
former Soviet Union, but I do not know where exactly it is.
The Chairman. The Ambassador indicated that in the last 4
years, four foreigners were kidnapped and decapitated in that
region. And he said, you better watch out. And let me see, I am
trying to cut down on this because I know you are a busy lady.
Do you believe that this Convention will eliminate
unnecessary bureaucratic steps?
Ms. Ryan. I hope so, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. What can be done to facilitate customer
service at the INS?
Ms. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I am not going to touch
that.
Senator Landrieu. That is a loaded question, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I thought I would get a rise out of that.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You are mighty nice to come.
Do you have questions?
Senator Landrieu. Just a comment. As the chairman stated,
he feels very strongly about the role of the State Department,
and I was hoping that maybe you would have a suggestion about,
given that, a way of a partnership arrangement perhaps between
the State Department and Health and Human Services. Because
both agencies, if either one were designated, would have to
contract some of this work out anyway.
So perhaps while the time may be short this morning, the
State Department could think about some sort of partnership.
Because I think the chairman feels very strongly about this.
And even if we have to provide some additional staffing, I
think this committee is of a mind to do that, at least
initially. So perhaps you could give some thought and maybe
submit something back in writing or communicate.
Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Senator. We certainly will do that.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. We would
be glad for you to stick around if you have time. If you want,
you could do it. I would invite you to come up here and pretend
you are a Senator.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Seriously, thank you very much for coming.
All right, now panel two, Dr. Ronald S. Federici, Clinical
Director, Psychiatric and Neuropsychological Associates, of
Alexandria, Virginia; Ms. Barbara A. Holtan, Director of
Adoption Services, Tressler Adoption Services, York,
Pennsylvania; Mrs. Tomilee Harding–this is a special lady from
my home State–Tomilee Harding, Executive Director, Christian
World Adoption, from Hendersonville, North Carolina, which is a
beautiful part of our State; Mr. Mark T. McDermott, Legislative
Chairman of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys in
Washington; and Ms. Susan Soon-Keum Cox, Vice President of
Public Policy and External Affairs, Holt International
Children’s Services, Eugene, Oregon.
What a distinguished looking panel.
Senator Landrieu. A wonderful group.
The Chairman. And, Ms. Mary, before I forget it, I do not
know about you, but I am so delighted to see all of these other
people who are here this morning. That is a measurement, I
think, of the interest and the desire to make sure that this
kind of thing, which all of us are so much concerned with, is
done right.
Senator Landrieu. Absolutely. I want to thank them, too.
The Chairman. Let me take the liberty of saying this lady
is a mother who has adopted children, beautiful children. And
that is one of the reasons I like her.
We will start on the left, which is the way the television
cameras would see you, or the right. Anyway, we will start with
you, Dr. Federici.

STATEMENT OF RONALD S. FEDERICI, PSY.D., CLINICAL DIRECTOR,
PSYCHIATRIC AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

Dr. Federici. Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, it is a
pleasure to be here. Committee members, thank you very much for
allowing me the opportunity to testify.
My name is Dr. Ronald Federici. I am a developmental
neuropsychologist, which basically means I specialize in
evaluating children with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric
difficulties. I am Professor of Pediatrics and Neuropsychology
and Child Development. I lecture extensively throughout the
United States and internationally. And I am also an honorary
member of the remaining Department of Child Welfare, because my
medical team works extensively in Romania, working on the
institution projects.
I am also very proud to be the adoptive parent of four
internationally adopted children, and have recently gained
guardianship with two other children in Romania.
My professional colleagues in international adoption
medicine have basically designated me as the one who has seen
the most difficult children. My estimate is that I have seen
over 1,500 to 1,600 internationally adopted children who are in
their school age years for various evaluations for neurological
or psychiatric difficulties.
Basically, I am speaking to the committee on behalf of my
work and research, which I am also going to offer to the
committee, as well as some other supportive documentation. And
I am very proud to have many of the families and support groups
here in the audience who I have worked alongside for many, many
years, who would corroborate some of the difficulties that have
surfaced regarding international adoptions and adoption
practices.
While I am not an attorney, my job is to be an investigator
and work with the families to help them provide the most
detailed assessment of their child’s special needs, and also to
help develop the most appropriate treatment plans to bring the
child to their maximum potential.
If I may just say that I have probably, in my research
sample, and it is included in my testimony which the committee
has already, we are organizing a very detailed research sample,
in conjunction with Dr. Dana Johnson and the University of
Minnesota, and Dr. Pat Mason, of Emory University, which should
solidify all the data on the long-term effects of
institutionalization regarding thousands of cases.
In my one sample, which I have seen, which has been
reported, of over 1,500 internationally adopted children, every
one of them were informed by their adoption agency that they
were healthy. All 1,500 of them were not healthy.
I broke down the statistics in terms of by numbers. But if
we were to look at approximations, 50 to 60 percent of the
children had long-term chronic problems; 20 to 30 percent had
refractory or chronic difficulties that would require lifelong
care and probably a lack of independence on the part of the
child; and less than 20 percent of our sample, which is
corroborated now with an additional sample that I have provided
from Emory University, since they have also done recent data
collections, show that the children were able to be resilient.
Again, sir, all of the children were advised by their
agencies that they were healthy. The statements that were made
consistently to me from the families, since I have had the
opportunity to review a modicum of medical records, that to
disregard the medical records, the children will be fine, they
are slightly delayed, they need a loving home, they need care,
health, hygiene, and everything would be fine.
This turned out to be absolutely incorrect, at least in our
assessment now of the older children, since what we are finding
out about the long-term effects of institutionalization, from
nutritional, medical and psychological neglect, which I have
supplied some of the most up-to-date research from researchers
across the country who would corroborate the findings, is that
children from internationally adopted settings, regardless of
age, are deemed a very high-risk population and require very
special families to handle these cases.
In my work with Romanian Secretary of State Tabacaru, he
recommends that every child out of Romania receive a label as a
handicapped child or a child at risk for delays.
Some of the other critical issues that seem to come about
is that the families were grossly ill prepared, overwhelmed. I
have dealt with families who divorced, went bankrupt. Many
relinquished their children. The majority of the families were
in states of despair and depression, where they did not know
how to deal with the situation of a, quote, healthy child.
All families passed the home study. In my years, 20 years
of practice, I have yet to see a family fail a home study.
Several of the families that passed home studies were active
alcoholics, drug addicts, out of prison, financially ill
prepared, unemployed, and so forth and so on, where they were
clearly not afforded a proper home study or psychological
evaluation, which has, for the most part, been deleted as a
critical part of the home study.
I have now been called upon to be a participant in numerous
litigations against agencies. I have served as an expert
witness several times, and right now I am involved in eight
different litigations against 10 different agencies.
So, in summary, sir, there seems to be quality control over
the preparation for the families. The families are very ill
prepared. There seems to be some misinformation provided to the
1,500 families who had, quote, healthy children, when all were
impaired at some level, with many of the families wondering why
they would pay so much money for a handicapped child.
Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Federici follows:]

Prepared Statement of Dr. Federici

I, Dr. Ronald Steven Federici, am a Board Certified Developmental
Neuropsychologist and expert in severely delayed children, particularly
children from post-institutionalized settings. I have been in
professional practice for 20 years and have evaluated approximately
1800 adopted and internationally adopted children. I am regarded as the
Country’s expert in the neuropsychological evaluation and treatment of
the post-institutionalized child and lecture nationally and
internationally on this topic. I am the author of “Help for the
Hopeless Child: A Guide for Families (With Special Discussion for
Assessing and Treating the Post-Institutionalized Child)”. Also, I am
the parent of six internationally adopted children; four of which
reside with us in the United States and the other two I raise in their
home country of Romania in which I maintain legal guardianship.
I have been evaluating internationally adopted children since
early-mid 1980’s to present. I have evaluated approximately 1800 post-
institutionalized children and have collected extensive data which is
now being reviewed and incorporated into a major research project with
Dr. Dana Johnson at the University of Minnesota and Dr. Patrick Mason
at Emory University. My preliminary data is referenced in my book and
will be further outlined in my summary testimony.
Families come to see me from all over the United States and now
England and Ireland in order to receive my expertise in developmental
neuropsychological evaluations. Virtually every family who has come to
see me was informed by their adoption agency that their child was
either “healthy” or had “mild developmental delays which would
improve with a loving and nurturing family”. I have reviewed thousands
of medical and psychiatric records on these post-institutionalized
children and have also heard thousands of the exact same story from
families who have adopted regarding their experience with their
international adoption agency.
There is a very important point to be made here regarding the
entire international adoption process, even prior to the child being
placed. In my 20 years of practice and, most recently, the extensive
work with internationally adopted children, I have yet to see a family
fail a “home study” which was provided by the agency. For example, I
have a family in which both parents were active alcoholics and in
treatment, but were allowed to adopt two children. When I confronted
them how they passed the home study, they openly informed me that their
adoption agency told them “we just won’t put that in the home study”.
I have many other cases in which it was clear one parent was mentally
ill, or both had significant emotional and marital problems but yet
passed the home study. I even have one case in which the father was out
of jail for sexual offenses and passed the home study in order to adopt
a child from Russia. Therefore, what is the purpose of a home study if
it does not measure or adequately assess any psychological domains of
the perspective parents or the agency will go as far as omitting
important information.
Specifically, all of the families who have come to see me have felt
at the end of their patience and totally overwhelmed and frustrated. By
the time families make it to my office, they have seen multiple medical
and psychiatric providers who still have not been able to reach a
conclusion or consensus regarding the type of illness or damage to
their child. The families have consistently told me that they have
brought their concerns to their international adoption agency, but have
rarely–if ever–received any type of support, encouragement or even
proper referral to those of us who are designated experts in
international adoption medicine. Actually, many of the families were
told to avoid specialists such as myself or others across the country
as “we would only find a problem with their child which was not true
as the child just needed more time and love to adjust”.
Most families sought out my services as well as specialty services
from other international adoption specialists through the Parent
Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child (PNPIC), Friends of
Russian and Ukranian Adoptions (FRUA), word of mouth or by reading
various articles I have published or my recently published book.
Additionally, families with damaged internationally adopted children
flock to conferences sponsored by the Parent Network which have now
totaled over 17 across the United States and in the United Kingdom. In
these conferences which I have co-sponsored and lectured, rarely do we
see international adoption agency personnel. Actually, agencies avoid
these conferences and avoid dealing directly with the significant
problems that many post-institutionalized children experience.
In my preliminary research statistics, based on a sample of 1500
internationally adopted, post-institutionalized children, with an
average age of 4.2 years and an average time in the institution from
24-through-84 months, of the adoption agencies informed the families
that the children were “healthy or only mildly delayed which would
improve with a loving family”. The medical records clearly indicated
that the child showed high risk pre- and post-natal factors such as
fetal alcohol exposure, prematurity, nutritional neglect, low birth
weight, or just the damaging effects of living in a deprived
institution. Also, there are frequently uncertain “medical diagnoses”
put on the child’s records such as perinatal encephalopathy, hypoxia or
various other unusual terms. While the medical experts consistently
state that these Eastern European diagnoses might not mean anything,
caution is still provided to the parents. International adoption
agencies frequently tell the parents to “disregard the medical records
from the country as they have to put something down in order for the
child to be adopted out”. We are now finding that many of the true
medical records may lack clarity or sophistication in diagnostic
nomenclature, but are in fact correct in defining a child who is at
high risk or ill at some level.
The neuropsychological outcome factors of these 1500 children
yields the following:

1. 450 or approximately 30% of the sample had severe
neuropsychiatric disorders such as mental retardation, autism,
fetal alcohol syndrome, or chronic and long-term disabilities.
2. 750 or approximately 50% of the sample displayed mild-to-
moderate learning disabilities and developmental disorders
which required life-long special education, medical and
psychiatric interventions.
3. 375 or approximately 20% of the sample displayed
relatively “clean” or benign neuropsychological and
psychological difficulties which would continue to improve over
the course of time and with the appropriate medical,
psychological and educational interventions along with routine
acculturation.

Therefore, 80% of the children I have evaluated whose families were
told by their agency that they were “healthy” were, in fact
neuropsychiatrically impaired and would pose a financial and emotional
burden to the family for life. I fully realize that families come to me
for evaluation of problems, but if one provider such as myself has seen
so many impaired internationally adopted children, there must be
definite problems in the entire international adoption process
beginning at the time of the child being identified in their home
country (grossly inaccurate medical and psychiatric assessments).
Additionally, it is absolutely inappropriate for international adoption
agencies to tell families who are adopting children from such high risk
countries such as Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, other Eastern European
countries, India as well as Central and South America is that “all
children need is a loving and stable home and time to adjust”.
Many of the agencies have recently published their “research and
surveys” regarding internationally adopted children. In the most
recent one completed by a Washington, D.C. agency, they touted that
only “less than 10% of the children had problems and that most were
doing well”. Professional researchers and critics have totally
disregarded these surveys as they are no more than “content surveys”.
Most families are happy they have a child which is the target of these
surveys, but there is no real mention or assessment regarding the level
of disabilities. Emory University International Child Clinic and the
Parent Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child are now conducting
a more professional national survey and finding completely contrary
results from the Washington, D.C. based survey. It is very clear that
proper professional evaluation of the internationally adopted child
indicates that these children are a “very high risk population”. Just
for the Senate hearing records, I offered a modicum of professional
input and proper neurological and psychiatric assessment surveys to the
Washington, D.C. adoption agency who published the recent “contentment
survey” that I am sure the agencies will discuss. I spent ample time
in helping them formulate a proper research survey, but was informed by
the Director (following a presentation regarding neuropsychological
work with post-institutionalized children) that if “she were to tell
families everything that I have presented or given to their agency,
that no one would adopt”. This sums up the issue and clearly shows
that financial gain and increasing adoption numbers took priority over
quality assurance and protection of the perspective adoptive family.
The agencies maintain a “wait and see philosophy” and have rarely
recommended to my families immediate and aggressive evaluation and
treatment. Even when families take my neuropsychological or other
medical data back to the agency in an effort to point out that their
child is severely impaired or delayed, many agencies which I can
specifically name and identify, have told families to disregard my
evaluation and keep getting additional opinions with the hope of
finding the child healthy and discredit my findings or those of my
professional colleagues. It should be emphasized that by the time
families come to me, I am, in fact, the last opinion or the one they
count on the most based on my expertise and extensive experience with
the post-institutionalized child.
I am an Honorary member of the Romanian Department of Child
Protective Services and President of the Romanian Challenge Appeal
which is an international humanitarian aid organization. I have over 30
medical specialists from all disciplines who have worked in Romania
evaluating children in institutional settings. I have visited
institutions all over the world, particularly Romania, and it is very
clear that any child residing in such a deprived environment can and
must be labeled “high risk” due to the multitude of environmental,
medical, nutritional and deprivation risk factors which international
adoption agencies grossly minimize when the families are in the initial
stages of international adoption.
A vast amount of my families have informed me that, when they went
to the country to pick up the child, it was very clear that the child
was sick and no where near the “statement of health” provided by the
international adoption agency. Many families have also informed me that
their child was switched at the last minute, or that their child was so
sick that they doubted he or she would make it home. Furthermore, many
of the families who adopted older children found the child to be
completely out of control and were completely ill-prepared to deal with
a violent and out of control child for the trip home.
I have served as expert witness on several high profile cases such
as the murder ease in Colorado where the mother murdered her
internationally adopted toddler (Polreis case) in addition to the Thorn
case where the parents were arrested in New York for allegedly abusing
their two Russian toddlers who were out of control on the plane. I have
been asked to serve as an expert witness multiple times by families
filing suit against their international adoption agencies. In the cases
I have participated in, international adoption agencies withheld or
fabricated records, blatantly lied to the families regarding the health
status of the child, or were involved in some type of scandal between
the U.S. agency and the overseas NGO. I have personally witnessed
lawyers obtaining the true medical records on the children in which the
international adoption agency and NGO deliberately withheld. I have
seen cases settle for millions of dollars. I have seen families being
given a child who has Delta-D Hepatitis which is a terminal condition
when they were told the child was perfectly healthy and passed the
“exit medical examination” in their home country in which the
hepatitis would have been picked up immediately if it were a legitimate
examination. In many of the cases, it was exceedingly clear that the
agency withheld valuable information from the families which would have
potentially changed their decision to adopt or prepare properly for
adopting a special needs child.
I have seen a multitude of families disrupt their adoption because
they were no longer able to care for the child’s financial and
emotional needs. I have seen families separate and divorce, or engage
in abuse of their child because the child exhibited grossly out of
control and aggressive behaviors. I have evaluated children who have
severe attachment disorders, neuropsychiatric conditions, sexual
offenders, killers of animals within the home, and several children who
have attempted to murder their siblings, parents or commit suicide. I
have consistently watched families feel devastated and enraged with
their international adoption agency who had promised them a “healthy
child”.
There are few, if any, international adoption agencies who have
provided adequate training for the high risk factors of the post-
institutionalized child. Follow up counseling or support from
international adoption agencies is virtually non-existent.
It has been my professional and personal experience that, when
confronted, international adoption agencies maintain strong denial,
deceit and manipulation when they are forced to deal with a family that
has a damaged child. This is not an isolated occurrence, but a
situation which has occurred thousands of times. I urge the Committee
to consult with the Parent Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child
(Thais Tepper and Lois Hannon, Directors), in addition to various other
support groups around the country for families with internationally
adopted children. It would also be worthwhile for the Committee to
review the statistics of Tressler Lutheran Services in Pennsylvania as
directed by Barbara Holtan. This program has handled many disrupted
international adoptions and specialized in placing these very difficult
children.
In summary, and as stated in my book, international adoption
agencies do a very poor job in preparing families for the high-risk
post-institutionalized child. They maintain a position of denial and
minimization regarding the damaging effects of institutional care and
sell families the fantasy that a “good loving home and time will cure
all”. Yes, there are definitely many children who do well, but there
is a very large percentage of families with damaged children. If I,
myself, have seen nearly 2000 and the Parent Network for the Post-
Institutionalized Child has almost 6000 families having damaged
children, and other organizations having thousands of their own damaged
children and families, then there clearly is a need for better quality
control on the part of the international adoption agencies.
Furthermore, all of the families who have come to me have spent a
minimum of $15,000-$20,000 to adopt their child which turned out to be
special needs. As stated by the Romanian Secretary of State, Dr.
Cristian Tabacarn, a Romanian adoption should cost no more than $4,000-
$5,000. Families are instructed to carry over large volumes of cash in
“new bills” by their adoption agency to hand to the overseas
coordinator. This statement I can verify personally as I am the parent
of six internationally adopted children and was instructed by my agency
to carry over large sums of money in new bills and with specific
denominations. There is no accounting for this money that is sent
overseas and it is very clear that United States international adoption
agencies are making vast sums of money on adoptions, even the ones who
turned out to be handicapped.
Agencies continue to resist working collaboratively with adoption
medicine specialists, families, parent support groups, post-placement
supportive programs. The problem continues in volumes as the number of
internationally adopted children rises each year. There is no quality
control or accountability that the agencies must be held to. There is
no standard of care, operation, financial accountability or, most
importantly, securing the most accurate, detailed and honest
information provided to the families. Families adopting are very
vulnerable and impressionable, and tend to believe the fantasy as
opposed to a painful reality which is often the case.
Despite numerous attempts on my part to educate and offer free
training to any and all international adoption agencies, I have been
discounted and under utilized. JCICS recently sponsored the first
“International Medicine Adoption Conference”, but their practices
continue as it was very clear that many of the agencies in the audience
did not want to listen to the potential risk factors as this would
limit their adoption numbers and profit. They asked for training and
guidance, but turn around and do the same unethical and insensitive
practices time and time again.
Several agencies are under lawsuit at this time for fraudulent
practice. I would be pleased to provide documentation of pending legal
cases ranging from Oregon to Ohio to New York to Washington, D.C. to
Florida to Texas to Arizona involving more than 10 different agencies.
I continue to provide expert testimony and life planning for many of
the children that I have evaluated that are severely impaired and for
families that are in the process of suing their international adoption
agency for fraudulent adoption practices. I have seen many cases settle
before the court hearing, but the settlement is “sealed” per the
request of the adoption agency, but I am aware of the settlement
amounts and the legal document which were so clear in defining fraud
and negligence. Currently, I have received requests from literally
hundreds of families who wish they had the opportunity to tell their
story to any governmental agency or regulatory body who may invoke some
type of quality assurance or control over international adoptions. This
is not just one or two angry families, but a very large cross-sectional
group of well informed families. Many of these families were hoping
their concerns would be heard at this type of Senate hearing.
Without some form of governmental controls and monitoring, the
problem will continue. International adoption agencies seem to have a
difficult time in agreeing on how to ratify the Hague Convention as it
is clear they do not want accountability or monitoring.
Any area of medicine would be held accountable for their action.
This is why we maintain a license which is subject to scrutiny by our
State Boards. International adoption agencies have a license, but are
not subject to any scrutiny or disciplinary action aside from the times
they wind up in court–which is on the increase. The more handicapped
or special needs internationally adopted children coming into the
country will continue to provide a challenge to the ill-prepared
family, their educational system, and to the medical and psychiatric
specialists trying their best to deal with the problems. Most
importantly, the financial strain on the families can and will result
in more disrupted adoptions or the child receiving less than optimal
services.
With all of these factors in mind, it seems imperative that a
strong governmental position be taken regarding international adoption
agencies. Oversight, regulation, control regarding adoption practices
and financial accountability is of paramount importance.

The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Holtan.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA HOLTAN, M.A., M.S.W., DIRECTOR OF ADOPTION
SERVICES, TRESSLER LUTHERAN SERVICES, YORK, PENNSYLVANIA

Ms. Holtan. Thank you. I am speaking to you today as an
adoptive parent also. Our three children by adoption are now
grown up and, I am happy to say, knocking on wood, they are
doing fine.
I am also an adoption professional for the last 20 years.
And I have been working predominantly in the placement of
special needs American-born children into families here in the
United States. Our agency, Tressler Lutheran Services, works to
find families for the kids waiting in foster care right now.
We all know in this room, I hope, that adoption is a win-
win situation. No one is even suggesting that adoption is
something that should happen or not happen. It just is, and it
needs to continue.
In our profession, however, as in I think every profession,
sometimes folks get into it with less than stellar motivation.
We have seen this in the last recent years in international
adoption in particular, where people are doing this without the
education and knowledge they should have. As a result, as Ron
has mentioned, children are being placed into families who are
ill prepared to receive them.
In February 1994, Tressler Lutheran started receiving phone
calls from families around the United States who had adopted
Eastern European children, came home, and now felt they could
not continue the adoption. They contacted Tressler because we
have a national reputation for finding homes for difficult
children.
When these calls started, Senator, we were astonished at
the numbers that started to come in. Since February 1994, our
agency has been asked to find second families for 82 Eastern
European children. Now, that may seem like a small number. But
I went back in our statistics and, in the 10 years previous, we
were asked to replace 18 internationally born children. And in
the last 5 years, it has been 82. That is way too high.
The three things that we would like to offer to you as ways
to avoid the majority of these disruptions–there will always
be some; as long as we are dealing with human beings, that is
going to happen–but we can get the numbers down. And the first
way to do it is good, solid preparation for the pre-adoptive
families. Every agency that is placing adoptive children should
be preparing their families. Tell them the negative as well as
the positive. Nudge them along to think long term, as opposed
to just the getting of the child.
We must have people understand that the raising of them is
equally as important as the getting. So family preparation,
anything that can have agencies understand the importance of
that we are for it. And this bill does address this.
The second thing is that families must receive full
disclosure on the children they are considering. That means
material in English. It also means that they should be given
sufficient time to consider the referral materials, to read
about the child and make a lifetime commitment to him. We are
told that some agencies give families 24 hours to make a
decision of whether they want to adopt this child. That is
totally beyond the pale.
So, first, it is family preparation. Second is the full
disclosure. And the third part is post-placement services. And
that means that after the family comes home from Russia,
Romania, wherever, the agency that was there in the beginning
to help them form a family will be there for them after the
fact, to help them as needed.
At Tressler, we receive about 13 to 15 calls a month from
old families who adopted from us 5 years ago, 10 years ago,
needing something from us, needing some help. We respond to
every single one of those calls. I believe that any agency,
facilitator or attorney who is dealing with adoption must be
available after the fact to be there for these families.
Somehow we got the idea that internationally born kids
would not have problems and difficulties. I do not know how we
did that. We know that children in the foster care system have
many, many long-term problems. What I would like to suggest, as
did Ron, and I think others will as well, any child in a
Russian orphanage is a special needs child. And the families
who adopt him must be prepared for that.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Holtan follows:]

Prepared Statement of Barbara Holtan

I speak to you as an adoptive parent and from the perspective of a
twenty-year career as an adoption professional. Three of our 5 now
grown children, Seth, Kimberly and Timothy, joined us by adoption from
Vietnam and Korea. They are wonderful, functional adults now who have
given and continue to give my husband and me great joy.
My message to you is that adoption works. In the vast majority of
cases, it is successful and provides a win-win situation for parents
and children. We all benefit when a child finds a parent or two of his
own to stand between him and the darkness of belonging to no one. As
such, adoption should be encouraged and celebrated. There are excellent
adoption agencies and professionals in the US working diligently to
serve waiting children and they too should be celebrated and
encouraged.
Unfortunately, however, the adoption field, like all professions,
can attract those with less than altruistic motivations and others who
are enthusiastic but naive. International adoption, in particular,
seems to have attracted more than its share of such individuals in
recent years. Whether or not international adoption should continue is
not the issue. How we can work together to improve it and bring all
those engaged in it to Best Practice Standards is the issue.
I am the Director of Adoption for Tressler Lutheran Services
providing service to families in PA, DE and MD. Our primary mission and
mandate for the 27 years of our program has been to find loving
permanent families for children with Special Needs–predominantly
children from the foster care system in the U.S. We have also
participated in international adoptions throughout our history through
partnership with other reputable and knowledgeable U.S. based agencies.
Our history is long. Our knowledge base is significant. Our
expertise is in preparing families for adoption and supporting and
nurturing those adoptive families over time.
In February of 1994, we began receiving calls from adoptive
families around the country–families we did not know–had not worked
with–who were strangers to us. They were desperate, angry, sad,
frightened. They were asking TLS to find another family for their child
by adoption since they felt they could not continue. They were turning
to TLS due to our national reputation of finding families for hurt and
emotionally fragile children.Since February of 1994, we have received
calls such as this steadily. As of now, we have been asked to re-place
82 children–all adopted from Eastern Europe by American families.
Disruption is the term used to describe adoptions which are not working
out resulting in the child needing to leave the family and hopefully
enter into a second adoption. While 82 disruption requests in five
years may seem small considering the thousands of children entering the
U.S. via international adoption, it is important to note the following:

(1) This is only a TLS number–There is no tracking mechanism
for disruptions nationally.
(2) During the ten-year period previous at TLS we received 18
such requests–18 in ten years vs. 82 in five years.
(3) All of the requests came from parents of Eastern European
born children–predominantly Russia, second Romania.

These numbers are alarming to us. If TLS or another agency is
unable to find a second family for these children, many will–and
perhaps already have–enter the U.S. Child Welfare System. What have we
accomplished in bringing the child from institutional care in Russia to
end up in U. S. foster care system? The emotional toll on the parents
and the children is enormous.
As long as adoptions occur, there will be adoption disruptions.
Every one is heartbreaking, but they are a reality since we are dealing
with human beings. However, the numbers of disruptions can be lessened
if all those involved in the placement of children for adoption do the
following:

(1) Provide good, solid, pre-adoption parent preparation and
education. This is vital in order for the adoptive applicant to
make good choices regarding his motivation, ability and desire
to adopt a child. Give both the positive and the negative.
Nudge the adopters to take the long view. Work to move them
from naive enthusiasm to educated and wise individuals who,
when they make the lifelong commitment to a child, they
understand as fully as possible, the depth of this commitment.

TLS has been providing such education to our adopting families for
the past 27 years. It is the cornerstone and strength of our program.

(2) Provide to the adopters full disclosure–in English–of
everything that can possibly be found on the child’s current
status, health, developmental level, social history and family
background. Give the adopter sufficient time to read, digest
and consider this information before pushing them for a
commitment to the child.

(3) Provide post placement services to the family. Be there
for them after they return home for whatever they need in terms
of support, information, education in order to nurture the
placements over time.

Adoption is not an act; it is a process. Far too many adoption
agencies and facilitators see it only as the act of getting the child,
Far more attention must be paid to the long view: the process of
raising that child to adulthood. If we are privileged to be a part of
creating this family by adoption, we must be available to that family
over time.
U.S. Agencies who place Special Needs children into adoptive homes
already know the importance of this three-fold approach: Education–
Full Disclosure–Post Placement Services. We provide full service to
our families. How is it that we think that those adopting overseas
should receive any less? Standards of good practice must apply to all
adopters equally. Surely, a child in a Russian orphanage who is
receiving little or no individual attention, stimulation and nurturing
is as much a Special Needs child as one in the foster care system of
the United States. Surely the American considering adopting that child
deserves to receive the same amount of preparation before the adoption
and the same amount of assistance after they return home.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

The Chairman. What a fine statement.
Please forgive me. The distinguished Senator from Oregon,
an able member of this committee, has left another committee
meeting to come here to pay his respects and make some
comments. And if you will forgive me, I am going to call on
Gordon Smith. And we welcome you, sir, and appreciate your
coming.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored by
your courtesy. I am here out of a great interest in this issue.
I appreciate your holding this hearing.
I specifically want to welcome Susan Cox, of Holt
International, who is one of your witnesses and a resident of
my State. Holt International is an agency that is headquartered
in Eugene, Oregon.
I would also like to pay tribute to my wife Sharon, who is
behind me, who is here, from Oregon today. And she and I are
the parents of three adopted children and, like Senator
Landrieu, take this issue very seriously, very personally, and
are anxious to see adoption work as a remedy to lots of other
very cruel solutions.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Do you have any comment, Mary?
Senator Landrieu. No. I am just so happy that they are both
here. We can use all the help we can get.
The Chairman. Well, Mrs. Smith, now that I have seen you, I
know why we call him lucky around here.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. While we are interrupting, I want to pay my
respects to a valued member of our Senate family. I do not have
a staff; I have a Senate family of young people. And her name
is Michelle DeKonty. And I want Michelle to stand up and say
hello to you, too.
Ms. Dekonty. I am very honored to work on this issue with
Senator Helms. I am very much for adoption. And this issue has
enlightened me. And I have come in contact with some wonderful
people who really know their stuff, and they have been a great
deal of assistance to us. And I look forward to working with
you further.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Now, then, you brag about having somebody
from your home State, I can do the same.
Senator Smith. Great.
The Chairman. Mrs. Harding, welcome, from Hendersonville,
North Carolina.

STATEMENT OF TOMILEE HARDING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN
WORLD ADOPTION AND PRESIDENT, JOINT COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL
CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Ms. Harding. Thank you, Senator Helms and Senator Landrieu.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Tomilee Harding. I am the Founder and the
Executive Director of Christian World Adoption. We have offices
in Hendersonville, North Carolina, and Charleston, South
Carolina. I am also the President of the Joint Council on
International Children’s Services. And this is the oldest and
largest affiliation of not-for-profit child welfare agencies in
the United States that deal with children in international
adoption. The Joint Council has 130-plus members. And I am not
speaking as a witness for the Joint Council, but they have
submitted their comments to the committee.
Finally, and most proudly, I am the stepmother of two grown
sons, an adopted daughter from South America, who is 10, and my
husband and I are now in the process of adopting an 11-year-old
girl from Russia. And she has spent most of her life in a
Russian orphanage. So this matter is very dear to my heart, as
it is to most people who work in agencies, and of course the
people who care so much that are on this committee.
As a witness, I believe very, very much that The Hague is
necessary. And this is not just my belief, it is also the
belief of The Hague Alliance. The Hague Alliance calls very
strongly for the ratification of The Hague by the U.S. The
Convention provides a framework for cooperation and safeguards
for children, birth families and adoptive families that we
think is very critical.
The Hague Alliance includes most of the child welfare
organizations in the United States, the Joint Council on
International Children’s Services, the Child Welfare League,
American Bar Association, National Association of Social
Workers, American Public Human Services Association, Catholic
Charities, Association of Jewish Family and Children’s
Agencies, Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and
Children, National Council for Adoption, American Academy of
Adoption Attorneys, and North American Council on Adopted
Children. So if you wonder why our audience is full, there are
a lot of people that are very, very concerned about this issue
and care very much about what is happening.
I really am here because I consider myself a trench
soldier. I have spent most of the last 10 years traveling
extensively overseas. I spent a lot of time meeting with
officials, training personnel and touring orphanages. This has
been exhausting emotionally, physically and spiritually. But I
feel it is critical in order to supervise the activities of our
associates overseas and to understand the needs of the
officials and the children there.
In 1994, I headed a project to build an orphanage in north
Vietnam, and spent the next 4 years traveling back and forth to
hire and train care givers and to reunite children with their
birth families and to find adoptive homes if that was the
solution. I have travelled throughout Russia. Last June was my
14th trip, spending weeks at a time there. I have met with the
Russian Duma about their new law. And this September, Alla
Dzugaeva, the Chief Legal Specialist of the Federal Ministry of
Education, in Moscow, which oversees intercountry adoption,
expressed to me the Ministry’s hope that the Russian Duma would
ratify The Hague Treaty soon.
Currently, American adoptions, as you said, Senator, from
Russia are growing. It is the largest sending country. They
have established a Federal data bank to put their children in,
to fulfill the mandates of the central authority. Oftentimes,
there is confusion amongst countries about laws. I feel
strongly that there is a need to have a Federal body, like the
State Department–in fact, the State Department–to help
intercede with issues when adoptive parents have problems, when
the children have needs, and when the agencies do.
Recently, on a trip–in fact, last week–one of the
protectors for children’s rights from Irkutsk told Congressman
Taylor that the Russian area there is not doing adoptions to
Americans as much as the French because they have ratified The
Hague. Dr. Guo, the head of the China Center for Adoption, has
met with me on numerous occasions to discuss the U.S. and China
laws. They have increased their adoptions there and continue to
do so. Next year, they anticipate there will be 5,000 adoptions
from China. I have been told recently that China is seriously
considering ratifying The Hague and is studying it now.
I tell you these details of my work just to tell you the
amount of contact that I have had with people overseas and that
I feel that most of these countries are looking, as our
Secretary said, to see the U.S. ratify The Hague, as we were
one of the main players at the beginning and were an original
signatory.
As far as accreditation is concerned, I think it is an
important process to deliver high-quality adoption services.
The Joint Council, 130 agencies, has voluntarily agreed to go
along with this accreditation and feel that it is very
important.
Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. I am proud of you.
Ms. Harding. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. McDermott.

STATEMENT OF MARK T. MCDERMOTT, ESQ., LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN,
ACCOMPANIED BY GOLDA ZIMMERMAN, TRUSTEE, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
ADOPTION ATTORNEYS

Mr. McDermott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu and Senator Smith, I am Mark
McDermott, and I am Legislative Chair for the American Academy
of Adoption Attorneys. I am honored to have been asked to speak
to you about this important subject.
With me today is Golda Zimmerman also, who is a Trustee of
the American Academy. And she is also the Attorney for New Life
Adoption Agency, a licensed nonprofit agency in the State of
New York that specializes in Chinese adoption.
In the event that the committee has questions within her
area of expertise, she is also available.
And I would also note that two other members of our Academy
are here in the audience today.
The Chairman. Would you have them stand, please. And we
will not count that against your time.
Mr. McDermott. This is Ms. Zimmerman.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. McDermott. And Joel Tenenbaum is also here, and Irene
Steffas.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McDermott. Implementing legislation for The Hague
Convention has been a long time coming. Countless children have
waited too long for the protections that it is going to
provide. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu, for your
sponsorship of this legislation.
Our Academy is a nonprofit organization, consisting of
judges, attorneys and law professors from around the country
and Canada. Like many of our members, both Ms. Zimmerman and I
are adoptive parents. One of our organization’s highest
priorities is to have this Convention ratified so it can be put
into effect.
We were involved early on in the process, as a member of
the U.S. official delegation to The Hague, and thus we
participated in the drafting and negotiation of the Treaty.
Thereafter, we were asked by the Department of State to
formulate some criteria for the approval of attorneys and
others involved in the process. And we did that. And I have
with me today a copy of those criteria, which I would like to
submit at an appropriate time for the record.
The Convention is much needed. We have all been exposed to
abuses in places like Romania. Only through a treaty can there
be any guarantee against these abuses in the future.
One country must be assured that uniform provisions are in
place in the other countries so that abuses can be prevented.
These protections that exist in the Convention are enhanced by
your bill, S. 682, and I applaud that. The stakes are high, and
those involved in the process are very vulnerable.
Some of the protections that you have put in your
legislation that I would like to focus on have to do with the
requirement that medical records on the children be translated
into English and that those records be provided to the adoptive
parents in advance of the adoption. Also, I applaud the
provision that requires preparation for adoptive families. The
speakers before me have noted the importance of that.
And also very importantly, there is a provision that
requires that service providers be compensated on a fee-for-
service basis. This is important, because presently we are
plagued by situations where facilitators in other countries are
compensated on a contingent fee basis, which causes many
abuses, as evidenced by the rising tide of wrongful adoptions.
With all these protections, the only thing that dampens our
enthusiasm for the legislation are some provisions which we
have some problems with, which I think can be rectified. They
fall into two areas, the first of which has to do with the
restrictions on children who leave the United States for
adoption by citizens in other countries.
Those restrictions will have adverse effects, in our view,
in a number of areas–one of which has to do with the
supersession of State law. Adoption is an important subject
which has, to date, been left to the province of the individual
States. And if we make Federal law, telling them who they can
approve for adoption, that is a superceding of State law.
Second, these restrictions will cause children to remain
longer in nonpermanent situations, such as foster care. That is
not good social policy and it hurts children. So I am hoping we
can rectify that.
Third, it will precipitate retaliation by other countries
against our citizens who are trying to adopt children from
those countries.
The next area of concern has to do with the exclusion of
service providers for intercountry adoption service other than
accredited agencies. This, I understand, was an oversight–I
have been told is an oversight in the drafting process, because
the Treaty itself specifically provides for bodies and other
persons, other than accredited agencies, to be approved for the
provision of intercountry adoption services.
In closing, I would like to say that we are grateful for
your leadership, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu. We applaud
the protections that you have put in S. 682. They enhance the
Treaty. And with the exceptions that I have mentioned, we urge
you to pass this important and historic legislation.
[The prepared statement and information of Mr. McDermott
follows:]

Prepared Statement of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Mark
McDermott. I am the Legislative Chairman for the American Academy of
Adoption Attorneys. I am honored to have been asked to speak to you on
behalf of the Academy. Implementing legislation for the Hague
Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of
Intercountry Adoption has been a long time coming. Countless children
have waited too long for the protections the Convention will afford.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this historic Convention
and to the legislation needed to carry it out.
The Academy is a non-profit association of attorneys, judges, and
law school professors from around the country and Canada. The mission
of the Academy is to encourage the study and improvement of adoption
law and practice standards. Our members represent adoptive parents,
birth parents, adoption agencies and others involved in adoptions,
including intercountry adoptions. Like many of the members of the
Academy, I am an adoptive parent. Thus, I have a personal interest in
adoption issues. One of the Academy’s highest priorities is to do what
we can to encourage and assist in the ratification of the Convention
and in the passage of legislation to bring it into successful operation
in the United States.
The Academy has been involved in the Hague Convention since the
early stages. We participated in the drafting of the Convention in our
capacity as a member of the official United States delegation in 1992.
We also participated in the negotiations which led to adoption of the
Convention on May 29, 1993. Thereafter, the United States Department of
State asked the Academy to draft standards for the approval of
individual attorneys as intercountry adoption service providers under
the Convention. I have with me a copy of the approval standards drafted
by the Academy which I would like to submit for the record.

[The information referred to by Mr. McDermott follows his prepared
statement.]

Obviously, the Academy feels strongly that there is a need for the
Convention and the protections it provides. We have all been exposed to
the reports of adoption abuses in Romania and some other countries.
These abuses were the impetus for the drafting of the Convention. There
is no guarantee that the increased vigilance caused by the scandals and
the additional protections provided by new laws in individual countries
will prevent abuses in the future. Only through a treaty like this
Convention can one country be assured that uniform protections are in
place in other countries.
The centerpiece of the protections provided by the Convention is a
prohibition against agencies or others providing intercountry adoption
services unless, in the case of agencies, they have been accredited or,
in the case of others like attorneys, they have been approved. Due to
what has been described as a drafting error which will be corrected, S.
682 has no provision for the approval of any intercountry service
providers other than non-profit agencies. I will return to this problem
later in our statement.
The need for the type of protections and the oversight provided by
S. 682 is great. Most of the agencies and most of the individuals who
currently provide intercountry adoption services are competent and
ethical. Like any other area of human endeavor, however, there are some
who are not competent or not ethical. Since adoptions most often
involve young children, the risks are great and the stakes are high.
The adoption of a child is the most important legal transaction in
which a person can engage. It is a lifelong relationship and it forever
changes the life of those involved.
Adoptive parents who pursue intercountry adoption are vulnerable.
They have often gone through years of agonizing and expensive efforts
to succeed in having a biologic child. They have been exposed to
reports of how difficult it is to adopt. The situation causes
prospective adoptive parents to become desperate. Those unethical
adoption service providers who would seek to take advantage of these
people may find easy victims. Thus, protections are essential.
A major area of concern involves the use of facilitators. As the
number of children available for adoption in foreign countries
increases, more and more individuals are forming small agencies to
facilitate these placements. Unfortunately, their resources are not
great enough to adequately staff their foreign counterparts. Therefore,
the agencies use facilitators who are not trained in adoption, but
rather are selected solely to obtain children. It is not uncommon for
agencies to select business men or women who have “connections” to
get children out of orphanages. They have no experience or background
in adoption, medical or social issues. These facilitators are relied
upon to provide the medical information for the United States agencies.
In most situations, the facilitators are paid only if the adoption is
completed. By virtue of the way in which they are compensated, the
facilitators have a built-in incentive to divulge only the positive
medical information, and to hide or change the negative aspects of the
medical records, to insure that the adoption is completed. This happens
more and more, as evidenced by. the rising tide of wrongful adoption
litigation in this country. More control over foreign facilitators is
needed with any legislation proposed for foreign placements.
S. 682 contains a provision which would improve intercountry
adoption practice in this area. Section 203(b)(1)(A) (iii) requires
agencies to employ personnel only on a fee-for-service basis rather
than on a contingent-arrangement basis. This is a good provision but it
could be made stronger. Language should be added to make it clear that
the restriction also applies to facilitators and others employed to
perform services in the foreign country.
An example of the risks faced by adoptive parents involved in
intercountry adoption is provided by the following case. Adoptive
parents in the United States attempted to adopt a child from Estonia
through an agency in Maryland. The Maryland agency used a facilitator
in Estonia who was described as a “business man.” He was selected
solely because he knew the right individuals who could obtain children
from an orphanage. This facilitator, unknown to the adoptive parents,
had the adoption finalized in Estonia before the adoptive parents
arrived. When the adoptive parents arrived in Estonia, not only did
they discover that the child that had been selected for them was
totally paralyzed from the waist down, but that the adoption had been
finalized in their absence and without their knowledge. They were
confronted with either attempting to void the adoption through the
Estonian courts, or to take home with them a special needs child whom
they could not parent. The adoptive parents hired an attorney in
Estonia who successfully overturned the adoption based upon fraud, but
only at great financial and psychological cost.
We applaud provisions in S. 682 which would help combat the risks
presented by this case example. The requirement in Section
203(b)(1)(A)(i) that adoptive parents be provided medical records
translated into English before the adoption would make adoptive parents
better able to assess medical risks. The provision would be even better
if it were amended to require that the adoptive parents also be given a
copy of the original medical records in the language of the child’s
country of origin. This would enable the adoptive parents to verify the
accuracy of the translation. The requirement in Section 203
(b)(1)(A)(ii) that adoptive parents be provided at least six weeks of
counseling and guidance may serve to prevent adoption disruption. At
the very least, this requirement will make adoptive parents better able
to function in their new role as parents in a multi-cultural family.
While S. 682 would do much to improve intercountry adoption, it has
some undesirable provisions. A number of these relate to provisions
applicable to children leaving the United States for adoption by
citizens of other countries. We fear that the ramifications of the
restrictions on outgoing children in Section 303 have not been
considered. One of the most significant problems with these
restrictions is that they supercede state law in an area which has
always been free from Federal encroachment.
When a child from the United States is adopted by an adoptive
parent from another country, the adoption is virtually always granted
by the courts of, and pursuant to the laws of, the state of the child’s
origin. Likewise, the adoption of a child from another country by
citizens of the United States will be controlled by the law of the
child’s country of origin. Hence, restrictions in Section 303, like the
restriction on who is qualified to adopt United States’ children, would
serve to abrogate the law of any state which does not happen to have
laws which contain restrictions matching those in Section 303.
The restrictions in Section 303 also cause other concerns. Section
303 would require children to stay longer in non-permanent situations
like foster care while efforts are made to find United States citizens
to adopt them instead of adoptive parents from other countries. This is
not good social policy since it harms children. Congress has made great
strides recently to promote the early placement of children in
permanent homes. The delays mandated by Section 303 would be a step
backwards.
It is only logical to assume that, if the United States imposes
restrictions like those in Section 303 on prospective adoptive parents
from other countries, then other countries will retaliate by imposing
similar restrictions on prospective adoptive parents from the United
States. This is not compatible with the cooperative spirit envisioned
by the Convention and it will harm the interests of prospective
adoptive parents and prospective adoptees who are citizens of the
United States.
As mentioned earlier, we are very concerned about the failure of S.
682 to provide for the approval of any intercountry service providers
other than non-profit agencies. Because of the Academy’s involvement in
the drafting of the Convention, we are aware of the deliberations which
led to the Convention’s language on this point. The Convention
specifically provides for two categories of service providers. In
accordance with Article 22(1) of the Convention, the first category
consists of agencies which go through an accreditation process. Article
22(2) of the Convention describes a second category of authorized
service providers. That category consists of bodies or persons other
than agencies accredited under the Convention. These others would
include individuals such as attorneys. As far as attorneys are
concerned, we envision an approval process using criteria like the ones
drafted by the Academy. \1\ It is critical that the pool of service
providers from which adoptive parents must choose not be too small.
There should be no artificial restrictions on who is eligible to be a
service provider. Restrictions should only relate in a meaningful way
to the qualifications of the provider. It is essential that this aspect
of S. 682 be changed before the legislation proceeds further.
—————————————————————————
\1\ The Academy’s criteria were drafted before S. 682 was
introduced and, therefore, do not include some of the standards set out
in S. 682.
—————————————————————————
We are grateful for your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in moving the
United States toward ratification of the Convention. We also applaud
the provisions of S. 682 which would provide protections to those whose
families are affected by intercountry adoption. Subject to the changes
we have suggested, we urge this committee to pass this historic and
much needed legislation.
______

THE HAGUE CONVENTION

Criteria for Recognition as an Attorney Qualified To Conduct
Intercountry Adoptions Under the Terms of the Hague Convention

1. ORGANIZATION

1.A. The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (the Recommending
Authority, or its designee, is the entity which is designated by the
Central Authority to recommend for approval or disapproval attorneys at
law to practice in the area of intercountry adoptions, as that term Is
defined in the Hague Convention, and as set forth herein.

1.B. The Recommending Authority is the designated authority to
review, process and recommend or not recommend attorneys to the Central
Authority. The Central Authority retains the ultimate jurisdiction to
approve or disapprove attorneys for recommendation hereunder.

1.C. Recommendation or disapproval will be consistent with the
regulations promulgated by the Central Authority in compliance with the
terms of the Convention.

1.D. Definitions.

i. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined
herein, shall have the definitions ascribed in the Convention.

ii. The “Hague Convention” and the “Convention,” as
those terms are used herein, is known in full as THE HAGUE
CONVENTION OF MAY 29, 1993, ON THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND
COOPERATION IN RESPECT OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION, as may be
amended from time to time (the “Convention”).

iii. The Central Authority is the Unites States Department
of State, or its designee.

2. APPLICATION

These Criteria shall apply only to attorneys involved in placement
of children for adoption between Member States to the Convention, where
the intercountry adoption is not conducted under the supervision of
certified adoption agency.

3. TERM OF CERTIFICATION

3.A. Recommendation of attorneys under the Convention shall be for
a period of three (3) years, commencing on the date on which
certification is granted by the Central Authority. Periods of extension
of certification shall also be for three (3) years.

4. APPLICATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

4.A. Form and Content.

Applications shall be typewritten on forms provided by the
Recommending Authority. All applications and the information contained
therein shall be sworn to by the applicant as being true and complete.
All applications shall become the property of the Recommending
Authority.

4.B. Criteria For Recommendation.

i. Education and/or Experience.

Each applicant shall have completed the following
requirements:

1. Verified attendance at and completion of
appropriate courses in law school relating to adoption
and/or immigration law; and/or

2. Verified attendance at and completion of
appropriate seminars, recognized by the Recommending
Authority and/or the Central Authority, in the areas of
adoption am for immigration law; and/or

3. Authored publication(s) in the areas of adoption
and/or immigration law; and/or

4. Taught classes and/or led seminars in the areas
of adoption and/or immigration law; and/or

5. Demonstrated broad experience in the field of
adoptions, by evidence of his or her involvement in:

a. adoption finalizations (domestic or
international);

b. intercountry adoptions involving a
licensed agency; or

c. intercountry adoptions not involving a
licensed agency; and/or

6. Other factors demonstrating proficiency in
intercountry adoptions.

ii. Licensed to Practice/Good Standing.

Each applicant shall be an attorney at law, in good
standing, licensed to practice in every state/territory in
which said applicant practices law. Each applicant shall
provide documentation from the appropriate licensing body in
every such state/territory attesting to his or her good
standing.

iii. Ethical Considerations.

Each applicant shall represent and warrant that he or she
has fully complied with the Ethical Rules, Disciplinary Rules,
Ethical Canons, and other rules of professional and ethical
conduct in effect in each state in which the applicant
practices law or conducts business for other purposes, and
shall maintain the highest standards of professional and
ethical conduct. The applicant, and the applicant’s law
practice, shall be reputed and continue to be of the highest
standards of ethics, competence and professionalism, and
complies with the Code of Ethics, which is incorporated into
these Criteria. An applicant shall not have engaged in
activities which might tend to bring discredit upon the
profession of law, upon the Central Authority or the
Recommending Authority.

iv. Record of Professional Ethics and Competence.

Each applicant hereunder shall submit detailed information
of the following, including the resolution thereof:

1. All instances of professional sanction or
discipline involving the applicant during the course of
his or her legal practice;

2. All disciplinary and/or professional complaints
currently pending against the applicant;

3. All malpractice claims made against the
applicant, or against the applicant’s firm that
resulted in a lawsuit being filed, settlement being
paid, or the appointment of an attorney by the
applicant’s malpractice insurance carrier to defend the
applicant or the applicant’s firm; and

4. Criminal charges, spousal abuse, and/or child
maltreatment and/or indicated or founded child abuse
charges filed against the applicant while the applicant
is or was a member of any bar (the applicant shall
submit an original or certified copy of the results of
an inquiry made with all relevant bodies in the
applicant’s home state/territory concerning said child
abuse and maltreatment charges).

v. Conformity With State and Federal Laws, Rules and
Regulations.

The applicant shall at all times have conducted his or her
legal and adoption practice in full compliance with all laws,
rules and regulations which apply to such practitioner,
including specifically at ethical obligations and requirements
in each of the jurisdictions in which the Applicant is
licensed.

vi. Interview.

Each applicant shall complete a personal interview, at a
time and place to be set by the Recommending Authority, the
subject of which shall include, but not be limited to, the
substantive knowledge of the applicant with regard to adoption
in general and the intercountry adoption process in particular.

vii. Additional Documentation.

Each applicant shall submit a written statement describing
his or her practice and procedures as they relate to
intercountry adoption. The statement shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to, the following areas:

1. A sample of the written agreement which the
attorney intends to employ between the applicant and
his or her clients (the prospective adoptive parents or
birth parents), setting forth all of the understandings
between the attorney and the client, which agreement
shall include the following:

a. A statement of the client’s rights and
responsibilities;

b. An explicit submission on the part of
the applicant to the jurisdiction of the
Central Authority and compliance with the
Convention, and notice to the client that the
client may file any complaints against the
applicant with the Central Authority;

c. A clear itemized statement of estimated
and/or actual expenses to be incurred by the
client in connection with the adoption,
including legal fees and disbursements;

d. A statement certifying that the
applicant is in good standing with the
applicable bar association(s) and state
licensing board(s);

e. A statement certifying that the
applicant has applied for certification by the
Central Authority;

f. An explanation of the applicant’s system
for providing pre- and post-adoption services
to the client and the adoptive child; and

g. A statement detailing whether the
applicant will derive a fee, other
consideration or thing of value in connection
with the adoption from any source other than,
or in addition to, the client.

2. A statement detailing of the applicant’s
procedures to deal with the disruption of an adoption
placement (both before and after the physical placement
actually occurs), whether occurring in the country of
origin or in the country where the adoptive parents
reside.

3. A statement detailing the policies and
procedures for disclosure by the attorney to the client
of all known medical and social history of the adoptive
child (if the client is the adoptive parent) and of any
background information concerning the adoptive parents
(if the client is the biological parent and such
disclosure is permitted by all applicable laws and
rules and is authorized by the adoptive parent).

4. Policies and procedures for financial accounting
and record keeping, including an escrow account for
client retainers, both for fees and costs advanced,
prompt itemization by the applicant to the client of
all costs and fees incurred, and prompt return to the
client of all funds to which the client is then
entitled.

5. Policies and procedures for retaining the
records relating to intercountry adoptions in
accordance with state law.

viii. Other Memberships.

Each applicant shall disclose the names of the professional
organizations of which the applicant is a member.

ix. References.

Each applicant shall provide three (3) letters of reference
from persons with whom the applicant does not have a familial,
partnership or other business relationship, attesting to the
applicant’s good moral character and fitness, and the
applicant’s expertise in the area of domestic and/or
intercountry adoption.

x. Malpractice Insurance.

Each applicant shall provide evidence that the applicant is
covered by professional malpractice insurance, provided by a
recognized professional malpractice insurance carrier, with
coverage that includes the applicant’s role as an intercountry
adoption attorney, in an amount of not less than $250,000 per
incident or occurrence.

xi. Bankruptcy.

Each applicant shall certify that he/she has not petitioned
for, been declared or been adjudicated a bankrupt within five
years prior to the date of application.

xii. Release of Information/Indemnification.

1. Each applicant shall execute a general authorization to
obtain information about the applicant.

2. Each applicant shall certify that he/she understands
that the application contains an agreement indemnifying the
Central Authority and the Recommending Authority from any
claims arising from the certification process or otherwise.

xiii. Academy Membership.

An applicant’s present or past membership in the American
Academy of Adoption Attorneys shall not be a criterion for
recommendation hereunder.

4.C. Review of Application.

i. The Recommending Authority or its designee shall review
each application and submit its recommendation to the Central
Authority.

ii. Each application shall be given a preliminary
procedural review prior to substantive review.

iii. Applications shall he complete when submitted.
Incomplete applications shall be returned to the applicant.

iv. Incomplete applications which are returned shall be
accompanied by a written explanation of the deficiency.

v. An application complete on its face shall be
substantively reviewed.

vi. The applicant shall receive written notification of the
action of the Recommending Authority. In the event of the
disapproval of the application, the written notification shall
state the reasons that approval was not recommended, and shall
be sent by registered mail, return receipt requested.

vii. If approval is not recommended, the applicant shall
have thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to submit a
written request for re-evaluation. Said re-evaluation shall be
limited to supplementation, clarification or correction of
erroneous or incomplete information upon which the Recommending
Authority is believed to have relied in reaching its
determination. If the decision is not changed, the applicant
may not again apply for recommendation for a period of one (1)
year from the date of the most recent disapproval.

4.D. Application Fees.

A non-refundable application fee as determined by the
Recommending Authority shall accompany each application
submitted.

5. EXTENSION OF RECOMMENDATION

5.A. An Approved Attorney may apply for an extension of his or her
recommendation not earlier than six (6) months prior to the expiration
of their recommendation term, according to the regulations set forth
herein.

5.B. Applications for Extension of Recommendation.

Applications shall be typewritten on forms provided by the
Recommending Authority. All applications and the information
contained therein shall be sworn to by the applicant as being
true and complete.

5.C. Criteria For Extension of Certification.

i. During their most recent approval term, approved
attorney seeking extension of his or her certification shall
have completed the following requirements:

Continuing Legal Education.

1. Verified attendance at, and completion of,
courses or seminars, recognized by the Recommending
Authority and/or the Central Authority, in the areas of
adoption and/or immigration law.

2. Authored publication(s) in the areas of adoption
and/or immigration law; and/or

3. Taught classes and/or led seminars in the areas
of adoption and/or immigration law; and/or

4. Demonstrated broad experience in the field of
adoptions, by evidence of his or her involvement in:

a. adoption finalizations (domestic or
international);

b. intercountry adoptions involving a
licensed agency; or

c. intercountry adoptions not involving a
licensed agency; and/or

5. Other factors demonstrating proficiency in
intercountry adoptions.

ii. Verification of Other Matters.

Each approved attorney shall verify that he or she
continues to be an attorney at law, in good standing, licensed
to practice in his or her state/territory, that there have been
no instances of professional sanction or discipline, claims of
malpractice, criminal, spousal abuse, maltreatment and/or
indicated or founded child abuse, charges involving the
approved attorney during the course of his or her legal
practice and other business activities since the time of the
original application for certification (the approved attorney
shall submit an original or certified copy of the result of an
inquiry made with all relevant bodies in the applicant’s home
state/territory concerning reports of child maltreatment and/or
abuse in which the approved attorney has been an indicated
party).

iii. Additional Documentation.

Each approved attorney shall submit his or her current
written documentation as required under Section 4.B.vii.
hereof.

iv. Malpractice Insurance.

Each approved attorney shall provide evidence that the
applicant continues to be covered by professional at
malpractice insurance as required under Section 4.B.x. hereof.

v. Bankruptcy.

Each approved attorney shall provide evidence as required
under Section 4.B.xi. hereof.

vi. Licensed to Practice/Good Standing.

Each approved attorney shall continue be an attorney at
law, in good standing, licensed to practice in every state/
territory in which said applicant practices law, and shall
provide documentation from the appropriate licensing body in
every such state/territory attesting to his or her good
standing status.

vii. Ethical Consideration.

The approved attorney, and the approved attorney’s law
practice, shall be reputed and continue to be of the highest
standards of ethics, competence and professionalism, and
complies with the code of Ethics, which is incorporated into
these Criteria. An approved attorney shall not have engaged in
activities which might tend to bring discredit upon the
profession of law, upon the Central Authority or the
Recommending Authority.

viii. Other Memberships.

Each approved attorney shall disclose the names of the
professional organizations of which the applicant is then a
member.

ix. Release of Information/Indemnification..

a. Each approved attorney shall execute an authorization
for release of information as required under Section 4.B.xii.
hereof.

b. Each approved attorney shall certify that he/she
releases and indemnifies the Central Authority and the
Recommending Authority from any claims arising from the
certification process or otherwise.

x. Other Verification.

The Recommending Authority and/or the Central Authority may
request any other verification, substantiation or information
which it deems reasonably necessary to review the application
for continued certification of the approved attorney.

5.E. Application Fees.

i. A non-refundable application fee as determined by the
Recommending Authority shall accompany each application for
extension of certification submitted.

ii. In the event that an application for extension of
recommendation is received less than three months prior to the
expiration of the recommendation term, the attorney assumes the
risk that the extension may not be received prior to the
expiration of the recommendation term. In that event, the
attorney may be precluded from participating in intercountry
adoptions until his or her recommendation is reinstated.

5.F. Denial of Application for Extension.

If extension of approval is not recommended, the applicant
shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to
submit a written request for re-evaluation. Said re-evaluation
shall be limited to supplementation, clarification or
correction of erroneous or incomplete information upon which
the recommending Authority is believed to have relied in
reaching its determination. If the decision is not changed, the
applicant may not again apply for recommendation for a period
of one (1) year from the date of the most recent disapproval.

5.G. Conformity with State and Federal Laws, Rules and Regulations.

The approved attorney shall represent and warrant that he
or she has conducted his or her legal and adoption practice, at
all times, in full compliance with all laws, rules and
regulations, and Ethical Rules, Disciplinary Rules, Ethical
Canons which apply to such practitioner, including specifically
all ethical obligations and requirements.

6. REVOCATION OF RECOMMENDATION

6.A. The Recommending Authority may recommend that a recommendation
be revoked if it is determined after a hearing, held on notice of not
less than ten (10) days to the attorney, that:

i. The attorney was ineligible to receive certification,
either at the time of the original certification or at the time
of any extension thereof;

ii. The recommendation was issued to the attorney based
upon false or materially incorrect representations,
misstatements or omissions made by the attorney;

iii. The approved attorney failed to abide by all the rules
and regulations governing the attorney imposed by the
Convention and/or the Central Authority, and all applicable
local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations imposed
upon attorneys and/or adoption professionals, including any
requirements for continuing education and proficiency;

iv. The attorney failed to pay any fee or charge required
hereunder;

v. The attorney has been the subject to professional
sanction or discipline, claims of malpractice, criminal,
maltreatment and/or indicated or founded child abuse charges
involving the approved attorney during the course of his or her
legal practice since the time of the original application for
certification; or

vi. The attorney no longer meets the qualifications
established by the Central Authority for such recommendation.

7. NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS

7.A. The Recommending Authority shall inform the appropriate state
and local authorities of any material breach by the attorney of the
ethical and practice requirements set forth herein.

8. APPEALS

8.A. In the event that the Recommending Authority shall not
recommend an applicant for status as an approved attorney, or shall
deny an approved attorney an extension of his or her approval term, the
individual so denied may request a review of the determination of the
Recommending Authority by the Board of Directors of the American
Academy of Adoption Attorneys. The request for said review shall be
made in writing not more than thirty days from the date of the postmark
of the notice informing the applicant of the determination of the
Recommending Authority. The request for review shall be submitted with
all relevant attachments and exhibits; fifteen complete copies shall be
submitted. The request shall be accompanied by the filing fee then
established by the Recommending Authority. The individual requesting
said review shall be responsible for all costs and expenses which he or
she may incur in connection with said review. The decisions of the
Board of Directors of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys and
the Central Authority shall be final.

CODE OF ETHICS

In order to further the cause of the ethical intercountry
adoptions, each applicant and Approved Attorney agrees to comply will
the this Code of Ethics:

1. An Approved Attorney shall be duly licensed to practice
law in each state in which the Approved Attorney maintains a
law office, shall fully comply with the Ethical Rules,
Disciplinary Rules, Ethical Canons, or other rules of
professional and ethical conduct in effect in each state in
which the approved Attorney maintains an office, and shall
maintain the highest standards of professional and ethical
conduct. An Approved Attorney shall not engage in activities
which bring discredit upon the profession of law, the Central
Authority or the Recommending Authority.

2. An Approved Attorney shall assure that the Approved
Attorney’s clients are aware of their legal rights and
obligations.

3. An Approved Attorney may inform a client as to the
Approved Attorney’s understanding of the laws of a foreign
state in which the Approved Attorney is not licensed, provided
that the Approved Attorney disclosed that the Approved Attorney
is not licensed to practice in that jurisdiction,

4. An Approved Attorney shall not purport to represent both
the prospective adopting parent(s) and one or both birth
parents. Where practicable and where required by state law, the
Approved Attorney shall encourage independent representation of
all parties to the adoption.

5. An Approved Attorney shall actively discourage adoption
fraud and misrepresentation and shall not engage in such
conduct, and shall take all reasonable measures not
inconsistent with the confidentiality of the attorney/client
relationship to prevent adoption fraud or misrepresentation,
withdrawing from representation where necessary to avoid
participation in any such conduct.

6. An Approved Attorney shall assure that clients to an
adoption are aware of any laws which govern permissible
financial assistance to a birth parents.

7. An Approved Attorney shall not assist or cooperate in
any adoption in which the Approved Attorney knows that the
birth parent or parents are being paid or given anything of
value to induce the adoption placement, or for the consent or
relinquishment for adoption.

8. An Approved Attorney shall not enter into an agreement
for, charge, or collect an illegal or unconscionable fee. Fees
shall be commensurate with the services that have been provided
by the Approved Attorney. An Approved Attorney shall not,
directly or indirectly, charge a finder’s fee for locating a
birth parent or adoptive child. In determining whether a fee is
unconscionable, the factors to be considered shall include but
not be limited to, the following:

(a) The amount of the fee in proportion to the
value of the services performed;

(b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal
services properly;

(c) The time limitations imposed by the client or
by the circumstances;

(d) The time and labor required; and

(e) The experience, reputation and ability of the
Approved Attorney performing the services.

9. An Approved Attorney shall not possess a financial stake
in the success of any adoption in which the Approved Attorney
is retained as counsel for any party. An Approved Attorney
shall be considered to have a financial stake in an adoption if
the Approved Attorney enters into a fee agreement by which the
Approved Attorney is to receive a greater fee for a successful
adoption than is warranted based upon the reasonable value of
the services performed by the Approved Attorney, or if the
Approved Attorney is contractually entitled to a lesser fee
than the reasonable value of the services performed by the
Approved Attorney if the attempted adoption is unsuccessful.
The Approved Attorney shall not derive compensation or other
consideration in connection with the adoption from any source
other than or in addition to his or her client, or the party
responsible for the payment of the legal fees.

10. An Approved Attorney shall disburse client trust funds
only for those purposes specifically authorized by the client,
and the Approved Attorney shall not exercise independent
judgment or discretion over trust fund or escrow account
disbursement unless the client has specifically authorized the
exercise and scope of such discretion. An Approved Attorney
shall promptly account for all client funds held by the
Approved Attorney upon request by the client, and shall
promptly reimburse to the client all client funds due to the
client upon reasonable request by the client, as authorized by
the retainer agreement between the Approved Attorney and the
client, or upon completion of the matter for which the Approved
Attorney has been retained.

11. An Approved Attorney shall not make false or misleading
claims in advertisements or promotional materials.

12. An Approved Attorney shall not enter into any agreement
with any person which would have the effect of restricting the
Approved Attorney’s ability to exercise independent
professional judgment on behalf of the Approved Attorney’s
clients.

13. An Approved Attorney may, when appropriate and/or when
requested by a client, refer parties to competent and
professional medical providers, legal counsel, psychological
counselors, or adoption agencies. An Approved Attorney shall
avoid any appearance of impropriety and shall advise the
parties of any familial or professional relationship between
the Approved Attorney and any other professional to whom the
Approved Attorney may refer a party, including a doctor,
hospital, counselor or birthing coach. An Approved Attorney
shall receive no referral fee or thing of value from any
professional, organization or counselor to whom a party may be
referred by a Approved Attorney.

14. An Approved Attorney shall retain adoption-related
records in accordance with state law.

The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Cox.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN SOON-KEUM COX, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY
AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, HOLT INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Ms. Cox. Thank you. Good morning.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for taking the time to
support this important legislation and these efforts, and
Senator Landrieu. And also Senator Smith has a reputation in
Oregon for being very knowledgeable about adoption, so I am
especially pleased that he serves on this committee.
My name is Susan Soon-Keum Cox. I am from Eugene, Oregon.
And I have been adoption professional for over 20 years. There
have been worldwide more than 200,000 children who have found
their families through intercountry adoption. I was number 167.
And it is in that capacity as an international adoptee that I
testify today.
I think it is important to acknowledge that intercountry
adoption should never be the first line of defense, as Senator
Landrieu was saying this morning, there really is an important
priority. However, when a child will not have a family except
for intercountry adoption, it is not only appropriate, it is
also preferable to life in an orphanage or institution.
We have heard a lot today about the importance of training
and preparation. And I think that it is important to
acknowledge that children who come to their families for
adoption deserve the very best families that are possible to
help them to achieve all that they can as appropriate citizens.
I think that intercountry adoption provides the lifelong
response in the individual lives of children.
And so the mandate for agencies and individuals who will be
working with children and families in intercountry adoption,
they must be committed to finding families for children rather
than children for families. I think that is an important
distinction that needs to be made. It must be a priority to
respect not only the birth countries, but also to respect the
dignity of the child.
A nation’s decision as a matter of policy to permit
intercountry adoption is a complex and complicated one. And it
is important that we do not circumvent the sending country’s
adoption system or take shortcuts around their requirements.
As the acceptance of international adoption has grown, so
has the opportunities for exploitation and abuse. It is
unfortunate, but it is also true. And that is why the standards
and a process of accreditation is essential. It really provides
safeguards for practice which protects families and children,
and it also protects the institution of adoption.
There have been more than 140,000 children adopted in the
U.S. and Europe from Korea. And while it may have been
considered a social experiment in the 1950’s, I think that we
certainly have been able to prove, two generations of us who
are now adults, that we grew up and we have done, for the most
part, just fine. Thank you very much.
But there are issues that are unique to intercountry
adoption. And certainly the most obvious one is that generally
we grow up a different race than the parents who are raising
us. We are called upon to validate the realness of our
adoption, and sometimes by perfect strangers.
I have had the opportunity to work with hundreds of
adoptees through heritage camps and other programs for
international adoptees. I do not know a single adoptee who has
not been asked, “Who are your real mom and dad?”
Three weeks ago, there was an international gathering of
the first generation of Korean adoptees here in Washington,
D.C. Over 300 of us from seven European countries and the
United States came together to celebrate our commonality, our
common experience of international adoption. And there have
been some lessons learned along the way. There are some things
that we have to say, as you have talked about, consulting with
the adoption community and the experts and so on. I really urge
you to also acknowledge that we have grown up.
I participated at The Hague in 1993. And in this forum of
representatives from 66 countries, I was the only adoptee in
the room. And I felt an enormous responsibility to speak up and
to be able to participate on behalf of the adoptees who have
been adopted, but the hundreds of thousands of children who
still require adoption to have a family. We are firmly
committed to having access to our records and the opportunity
to be able to know about those situations that were at the
beginnings of our life that are a lifelong process. So I urge
you to really consider that application.
One of the things also that has changed as adoption has
expanded is that single families are now able to adopt and it
is that there are so many children orphanages around the world.
We need every appropriate family that can be found for those
children, and I really see that has been a wonderful thing for
children as we go into the future.
I would like to again thank the committee and all of the
efforts on behalf of adoption. And I look very much forward to
working with other adoptees to help move this process forward.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Mary, I seldom have ever heard five witnesses in a row
say so much in so little time.
[Laughter.]
Senator Landrieu. A very good job.
The Chairman. And I am grateful and I am amazed. Suppose we
have, including you, Senator Smith, if you have time, 7 minutes
per Senator to question. And I want this lady to ask the first
questions. Ms. Mary.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
Dr. Federici, we are all very familiar with your work and,
in your personal experience, have adopted I think four children
from Romania and have done a beautiful job. I have had the
chance to meet your family, and it was quite a thrill.
When you cited the 1,500 cases, were these, do you think,
self-selecting cases–in other words, did people who were
having problems seek you and your colleagues out? Is your
testimony, this morning, that this sample is representative of
all of the international adoptions?
Dr. Federici. Of course, the 1,500 that sought me out, it
usually was 3 or 4 years post-adoption, when they entered
school age, had some difficulties. But I think my sample is a
representation of a larger sample.
And again, having worked with up to 5,000 and 6,000
different families and different networks, I think what we are
seeing is a representation that many, the majority of children,
who have spent longer periods of time in institutional settings
do in fact have longer-term issues that require much more
intensive interventions than just the wait and see or that they
will recover from minor delays. So there are quite a few in my
sample that really have long-term issues that again, Senator,
are representative of probably the more global population.
Senator Landrieu. Because I think this issue is important,
and I know you are a strong advocate of international adoption.
I am sure your intent is not to frighten people. Rather, you
want to see the barriers come down and medical records improved
so that there are real opportunities for all children to find
homes. We both want to make it realistic–I guess the
expectations more realistic.
But the fact that there have been thousands and thousands
of children that have been placed in very positive outcomes, I
think the issue is just to make sure that parents are prepared.
Part of this legislation outlines a system where parents can be
more prepared and there can be more support services to deal
with problems. We must recognize that there are some real
serious and negative effects of institutionalization that
perhaps we have not recognized.
Let me ask Ms. Holtan, though, not so much a question but
something that I picked up that you may want to clarify. In
your comments, you said that you had come across or thought
that people adopting do not necessarily have the best
motivations. I am not sure if that was the word that you
intended to use. I think you might have meant they were not as
well prepared as they should have been. Were you questioning
the motivations of people in adoption?
Ms. Holtan. No. I was questioning some of the motivations
of people who are providing adoption services.
The Chairman. Services. OK. Not the families?
Ms. Holtan. No. After all the years of working with
families, they are extraordinarily wonderful people, by and
large. I just want them to have all the facts before they make
what should be a lifelong decision, so that we do not get calls
anymore, asking us to replace children from Eastern Europe.
Senator Landrieu. And along those lines, Mr. Chairman, I
wanted to point out for the record, I think Ms. Holtan
testified there were 82 cases of people calling in to her
agency over a 5-year period. Now there would have been about
100,000 children adopted each year in that timeframe, 15,000 of
which would have been international. So over a period of 5
years, about 75,000 children were adopted. It is important to
note, and we want to be sensitive to it, 82 out of 75,000
represents less than one-hundredth of 1 percent.
Ms. Holtan. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. Now, some other agencies would have
received other calls. But the vast majority of international
adoptions are actually working. I mean despite the fact that
there is not a terrific system in place, there are many
instances where these adoptions are working. We still need to
notice these trend lines. The fact that the number of
disruptions is going up should cause us some concern also.
Ms. Holtan. We do not know how many adoptions are working
or not working, because no one tracks it nationally. The 82
figure I gave you was our agency only. I would love to know
what the figure is across the country, but there is no one
counting that.
All we can say is that we have never seen anything like
this in the 27 years of our program. Something is different
with the children that we are being called on for. All I want
to have happen is that agencies start preparing families and be
there after the fact. Why are folks calling Tressler, who are
strangers to them? Where is their own agency then they need
help?
Senator Landrieu. Absolutely. And that is hopeful, Mr.
Chairman. One good thing about this legislation, and I think
one of the improvements we could make, is it requires pre-
adoption services, that the agencies would be responsible for.
We must make sure such services are provided in the middle and
back end as well.
Ms. Harding, you suggested or said that there have been
some development of steps to accreditation. Could you take a
minute to just briefly describe some of those steps that an
agency or an individual may have to go through in your mind to
become accredited, or the types of things they would have to do
to serve at that standard or to reach that standard?
Ms. Harding. I talked to the CEO of the Council on
Accreditation a week ago. And apparently there is 25 agencies
who are working in international adoption who have already
received accreditation, and at least 12 to 15 more in the
process. And there are different estimates of how many agencies
will elect to become accredited, but some say 200.
Our agency did go through accreditation 2 years ago. It was
very rigorous. It took us 2 years to complete our accreditation
process. I will not say it was easy. I will say that our agency
is much better for it.
I think that Susan brought up a point that is very valid.
This has been a whole social situation that has really
developed over the years. International adoption has increased.
We have learned. And part of the accreditation process is to
help other agencies learn to do their job better.
Peer reviewers who specialize in international adoption,
who are social workers, come into the agency and look at every
aspect of the agency. They look at your financial records,
which must be audited. They talk to your board of directors.
They interview your families. They look at all of your records,
or any random sample that they want to. They track your client
recordkeeping. They look at all of your policies and
procedures.
So I think that it is a very good system, and there are
people in place that are doing this very well.
Senator Landrieu. OK. I have some additional questions. My
time is up. But maybe we will get a second round.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. McDermott, you mentioned that you
think one of the changes in the bill would have to be a
technical correction made on the accreditation issue between
agencies and individuals. Explain that a little bit more, in
the sense that some of us are hoping that if you are an agency
or a lawyer or an individual, that you would have to maintain,
or believe you should maintain, the same standards and have to
meet the same accreditation requirements, or at least something
similar.
Can you comment on that? Because I know this was a big part
of the discussion, and that is a very important thing for us to
try to work out in this final language.
Mr. McDermott. Yes, Senator. Let me start by saying we are
not contending in any way that the standards should be lower or
less or in fact different, other than where they have to be to
fit the situation. We are in favor of rigorous standards for
qualifications to perform intercountry adoption services. That
is why we are strongly in favor of the Convention. And I think
the criteria that I have submitted that we did just for
attorneys for the record is instructive in that regard. We feel
they are pretty rigorous.
In fact, now that we have had some of the ideas that we
have gotten from S. 682, we would add those things in there,
like the translation of records and so forth.
But the Convention itself contemplated this. This is
something that we, as the Academy and part of the U.S.
delegation, were involved in this. It was a major issue for the
State Department. The U.S. delegation believed in this, that
there should not be artificial restrictions on who can provide
adoption services.
And in the Convention itself, Article 22.1 is the article
that addresses accredited agencies. And Article 22.2 is the
article that addresses others. And it speaks in terms of bodies
and persons other than these accredited agencies, but makes it
clear that they need to be regulated, approved and controlled,
and there has to be a lot of oversight.
So your point is well taken, Senator, that there should be
no suggestion that there be a lower standard applied to these
other people who are going to be allowed to provide
intercountry adoption services.
Senator Landrieu. But you all are objecting, though, to
having to follow the standards as outlined for an agency under
the idea that you are not an agency, but yet you are in some
ways going to be functioning like an agency. So I think we have
to work through that and see. And maybe there is some ways that
we can sharpen that language. And I am open to your suggestions
and I know the chairman is.
Mr. McDermott. And we are very much looking forward to
working with you as this project goes on.
Senator Landrieu. And, finally, to Ms. Cox. I want to
commend you for your great work in hosting the recent
international gathering of Korean adoptees. You can, of course,
speak from personal experience, but I think it was really a
life-changing event for many of the over 300 or 400 people, Mr.
Chairman, that participated in the first gathering.
You talked about single parents, and I wanted to revisit
that for a moment, because I think while it would be ideal for
every child to grow up in a family with two parents, it does
not happen even in the United States. It does not happen in
many places in the world. The chairman and I have talked about
that issue, in trying to find a way to work through our
differences of opinion.
In our own domestic adoption system, I do not think–
correct me if I am wrong–there is a State that prohibits a
single person from adopting, is that correct?
Ms. Cox. I think that is correct.
Senator Landrieu. From your experience, while many of the
Korean adoptees came into two-parent families, some of them
have either ended up or came in initially to a single family.
Can you describe their reaction? Was it positive or negative?
Ms. Cox. Senator and Mr. Chairman, I agree. I am very glad
that I had both a mother and father. But the fact of the matter
is I have seen children in orphanages and institutions around
the world, and we need as many families as possible for them.
So I do not think there is any disagreement that a two-parent
family is preferred, that certainly single parents also provide
that.
Now, it is also a recognition of what does the sending
country, what are their requirements. Korea, for example, does
not–they are not open to single-parent adoptions. That is a
guidance of the Korean Government. However, many other
countries, and certainly China, has been an opportunity for
many, many little baby girls to have families, who otherwise
would not have any due to the single-parent provision. So I
really urge that that is something that is included.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. In our shop a few days ago, we received a
letter from a parent in Washington State who supports S. 682,
and emphasized the need for consumer protection laws in
international adoptions. Please bear with me as I read some of
what this lady wrote regarding her adoption of a 12-year-old
girl from Russia, named Inga. And I quote her:

Despite very specific questions of the adoption
agency prior to picking up Inga, some crucial facts
were not–and she underscored that–not disclosed to
us. We were shocked to learn that she had been placed
with two Russian families. She could not read or write
Russian at the age of 12. She was a smoker. And she was
a habitual runner–meaning running away from home. She
had a history of being picked up by the police and
brought back to the orphanage. Had we known any of
these facts, the lady said, prior to traveling to
Russia to pick her up, we would not have proceeded.

Now, obviously Inga’s adopted family was unable to cope
with the child and is now attempting to dissolve the adoption.
She is now a ward of the State. She has gone through six
families and two hospitalizations. And according to the lady’s
letter, the adoption agency has been–and I am quoting the
lady–has been reluctant to admit any responsibility whatsoever
for its neglect in accessing pertinent, easily available
information. End of quote.
Now, that leads me to ask, and I want any of you to respond
to it, what is the current legal responsibility of adoption
agencies to provide parents with full disclosure of physical
and mental disabilities?
Dr. Federici. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I would
like to enter into the record, as provided by Secretary of
State Tabacaru, of Romania, who says that any and all
documentation can be obtained from the family, from the
hospital, and should be provided in great detail to the family.
And his position in Romania is that when there are statements
made to American agencies or agencies to families that the
information is not available, that is typically not correct.
I have personally sought out for many families when I have
been on trips to Romania to go back and find information that
was told to them by the agency was not available, and have
retrieved it immediately by going to the institution. What you
just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is one of the big issues that,
again, in my sample of working with families, they said, had
they known more information, they would have not adopted.
In the cases that I have been working on in litigation,
where my records have been subpoenaed and they retrieve the
original records from different agencies in different
countries, it was very clear that information was withheld. And
I have seen this, and this has been a big topic of litigation.
So this is something that I have heard countless time. And,
again, for the Romanian Secretary of State to say that the
records are readily available, it is just that no one asks for
them in the correct way.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Cox?
Ms. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add that in
addition to what are the legal requirements, there are also
ethical requirements. And even if it is not required by law,
anyone that is working in adoption needs to get as much
information as possible not only for the parents who are
adopting the children, but for the children themselves, so that
that information is available to them as they are growing up
and into their adulthood.
Ms. Holtan. And just one other thing, Mr. Chairman. It is
difficult in some situations to get full background information
on both internationally born kids and children here in the
United States. So what we suggest at Tressler is that you train
your families in sort of more general terms. In other words, if
you are adopting from Russia, you know the alcoholism rate in
that country, therefore it is not a shock that a lot of the
children in the orphanages will be affected by fetal alcohol
syndrome.
So you as a parent need to decide, can you take that risk?
Can you choose this child, knowing that it may not say he has
fetal alcohol syndrome or he has been sexually abused or
whatever the issue is, but that might have happened anyway? If
you can do that, then go for it. But if even thinking about it
makes you afraid, then imagine living with the situation.
So agencies say, well, we did not know, so how could we
tell? You know enough to talk in general terms about what
institutionalization does for kids. And that is what you have
to teach.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Harding?
Ms. Harding. One of the emphasis of Joint Council for the
last few years is parent preparation and training staff to do
better medical collection. I think that this is such a new
area, Eastern European adoptions really have proliferated in
the last few years, starting about 7 years ago in Russia, it
has been a learning experience. It is a challenge to get these
records, I can tell you.
These people in these orphanages are oftentimes spending
most of their time trying to feed the children. They are
working for a communist system that does not pay them. They are
not highly motivated people. They do not have copy machines.
They have a lot of challenges in their life. And so we have to
find creative ways or hire enough staff to do the work
ourselves.
We have staff now that speaks Russian, that literally calls
over there and talks to the doctors, because we cannot always
get the written medical information. We send the videos to the
parents. We send them to doctors who specialize in this in the
United States, who then ask us more questions, and we call over
there.
But the parents have to be willing to pay for this. And if
the parents are just going to adopt from any organization or
any individual that is unwilling to go to these lengths and
have this quality assurance, they are going to or it could have
problems.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McDermott?
Mr. McDermott. To respond further to the chairman’s
question about the current standards, that is somewhat outlined
by our legal system under this emerging tort called wrongful
adoption. And what the cases say in that area is that an agency
is required certainly not to conceal information that they do
have. And beyond that, they are required to exercise reasonable
care in gathering information that is relevant to the decision
that is being made by the adoptive parents.
There are more and more of these cases that are wending
their way through the courts in the United States. But that is
not a good thing, because these are after-the-fact fixes for
tragic situations. And hopefully, through the legislation that
we are considering here today, these things can be prevented at
the front end and there will not be as many wrongful adoption
cases.
The Chairman. Very well. Now, this one I am not going to
ask you to answer now. I want you to take the thought home, the
question home, and think about it and, if you do not mind,
write the Senator or me, or both of us, your answer to this
question. And I want you to be specific. What disclosure laws
do you believe would be useful in ensuring that parents will be
most fully aware and prepared for the special needs of adopted
children?
[The information referred to was not available at press
time.]
The Chairman. Now here is a question I want all of you to
answer now as briefly as possible. Although exact statistics on
the cost of adoptions are not available, typical fees according
fees according to our folks who looked into it, appear to be
around $15,000 to $20,000. I do not know whether that is
reasonable or not.
Would each of you provide your understanding of what these
costs are for? What is the money used for, sir?
Dr. Federici. Well, sir, since I am not an adoption agency
nor am I involved in it, I can only refer to an interview that
was completed while one of the remaining officials were here.
And his opinion, in Romania, is that a Romanian adoption should
cost no more than $4,000 to $5,000 from start to finish.
His question that he left the American agencies with is:
What happened to the other money, because it is not making its
way back into the Romanian orphanage system? It is somewhere
lost between transit, between cash money sent over to the
country, to the NGO’s, and he is not exactly sure and they are
trying to find some accountability.
So that is the best answer that I can give as a non-agency.
The Chairman. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Holtan. Senator, in 1975, our adoption of our first son
cost $2,000, and that included the plane fare. Today, the quote
that you gave is accurate. I have heard as high as $30,000 and
$40,000. All these years, I have been waiting for the bottom to
fall out of this and people to say, I am not paying that. It
has not. It just keeps escalating.
I do not know what could possibly cost that much money.
Ms. Harding. The adoption ranges that I hear most are
$15,000 to $20,000, $22,000. A lot of this includes the travel
of the parent. They stay in the country for 2 to 3 to 4 weeks.
Intercontinental travel, bringing the children back, you have
to have home studies done in the United States.
You have to hire the staff to do overseas what we mentioned
earlier to collect the information to care for the children to
bring the parents to the courts. You have a staff here in the
United States. We personally have 25 staff members here in the
United States, and I feel like they are all going to quit any
day because they are underpaid and overworked, including
myself. And we only do 200 adoptions a year.
So it seems to me like the services we provide are getting
greater, and yet we have to make sure that we keep the costs
down. And it takes a lot of accountability. I do not think Dr.
Tabacaru understands how the system is really working in
Romania. We tried to do adoptions there for 2 years at that
price.
Unfortunately, the Romanian foundations that they have set
up seem to have the control of the children. And they ask a
certain amount. And if you do not pay that amount, the American
families do not get those children. Now, whether that is right
or wrong, it is the reality of what is happening.
And particularly if there are so many individuals working
on it, and a parent can adopt with simply a home study, when
they do not have an agency that they know what they are doing
to protect them. It should not be what the market should bear.
The Chairman. Good.
Mr. McDermott?
Mr. McDermott. I would agree with that range being accurate
and the description of the services. It is just a matter of
life that when all these services are involved, there is going
to be expenses to pay for those. I know this is not germane
today, but that is one of the reasons why we are also vitally
interested in an extension on the adoption expense tax credit
legislation that the Congress passed a few years ago.
Another thing I would highlight is that if any of these
costs are going to foreign facilitators as finder fees, that is
one thing that we are very concerned about.
Ms. Cox. Senator, I believe that fees are one of the most
important barriers between children and families in adoption.
And while I agree with Tomilee, it is absolutely necessary to
provide fees for services, but they need to be appropriate fees
for services. And I cannot imagine that adoption could be
justifiably beyond $20,000. I really do think that fees are an
incredibly important issue.
You need to provide good services. But also, some times
these fees, the higher fees, do not necessarily mean that
families are getting better services. So there are a lot of
things in this very complex issue besides just the amount of
money.
The Chairman. Well, my understanding is that most adoption
agencies are 501(c)(3) organizations for tax purposes.
Ms. Cox. Correct.
The Chairman. And I asked myself, and I ask you to ponder
it, do you believe that the cost of adoptions appropriately
reflect the cost of the adoption only and not profit for
individuals providing the service? That may be a question that
varies from instance to instance.
Senator Landrieu. Could I make a comment, if I could?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Landrieu. I wanted to jump in for just a minute to
say that I think one of the goals of this Treaty is to keep the
cost down and to keep the cost appropriate and to create more
transparency in this whole process. So by being more
transparent, it becomes sort of a self-monitoring system, if
you will. The problem now is it is not transparent at all. And
it is quite difficult, and so tremendous abuse can occur.
But I want to say for the record that the cheapest adoption
is not always the best adoption. And I think we have to keep
that in mind. And there are some agencies that provide
tremendous and terrific services and they are legitimate, and
it costs money to do that, as has been testified to. And I
would just say, Mr. Chairman, on that point, the tax credit
that the Congress adopted is currently a $5,000 tax credit for
adoption and you have to show expenses to claim it.
But we, with your help, have put in a proposal to improve
that tax credit, to double it, No. 1, to $10,000, and to make
it real for special needs children–sibling groups, children,
international, domestic adoptions of non-infants, you know,
States that would determine what are special needs, and whether
you have expenses or not, you could still take the $10,000.
Now, most international will have expenses, but some
domestic for special needs children do not. And so we want this
tax credit to work both international and domestic. And I hope,
Mr. Chairman, we can get that done. Of course that is a
separate piece of legislation, but we hope that could be done
this year also.
The Chairman. Do you have any further questions?
Senator Landrieu. No.
The Chairman. I have kept you longer than I intended, and I
have another meeting that I must preside over in 30 minutes.
You have been very good about answering questions. Could I
impose on you one more time? There are going to be Senators who
wanted to come and who could not, who would like to ask you
questions. There will be probably the chairman who wants to ask
other questions. Would you grant us the privilege of forwarding
to you further questions and would you respond to them and get
them back to us? It would be so helpful if you would do that.
And I will personally appreciate it.
Ms. Mary, anything else?
Senator Landrieu. No other questions. I would just say I
really appreciate the testimony and all the hard work that is
gone into this. And as I said, we have got improvements to make
and some changes that have been mentioned today that we hope we
can work through, but we are on our way. And I thank the
chairman again. And hopefully we can–I do not know what your
timeframe is–is it possible we could move this, do you think,
this Congress?
The Chairman. We can give it the old college try.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I will start working on my side,
the chairman said he will start working on his side, to see if
we can get this moving forward. Thank you all so very much.
The Chairman. Thank you all. And I thank you all folks for
being here.
If there be no further business to come before the
committee, we will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

———-

Additional Material Submitted to the Committee
for the Record

American Embassy,
Moscow, Russia.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: American citizens continue to adopt Russian
orphans at a brisk pace. In the first five months op this year, the
embassy issued one thousand six hundred and seventy immigrant visas to
Russian orphans adopted by American families. At this rate, we may well
exceed last year’s record number of Russian orphan visa issuances, four
thousand one hundred and seventy seven.
Danger in the Caucasus
Because Russian law requires that both adoptive parents be present
for the court hearing, the large number of American adoptions in Russia
means that many thousands of American citizens come here every year
expressly for this purpose. Unfortunately, some U.S. adoption agencies
are arranging adoptions in areas of Russia–such as the Caucasus–that
are extremely dangerous. Our consular information sheet and the state
department webs site warn against travel to the area. In fact, I
prohibit embassy personnel from traveling to the Caucasus.
Adopting families are very attractive targets for kidnaping
because, in addition to being foreigners, it is well known that they
are spending large amounts of money in the adoption process. There is
also the problem of deadly random violence; car bombs are a frequent
aspect of daily life in this unstable part of Russia.
This is not a theoretical problem. Four foreigners were kidnaped
and decapitated in the Caucasus last year. An American missionary has
been held hostage for the past several months because he and his family
decided to ignore the embassy’s advice in the belief that their good
work and extensive local contacts would protect them. He has since lost
part of his hand and is still a hostage of a criminal gang. No
foreigner is safe in the republics that constitute the Caucasus:
Chechnya, North Ossetia, Dagestan or Ingushetia. Even Russians are at
risk; a Russian army general is currently being held captive.
I want to emphasize that we do not object to agencies facilitating
adoptions in these dangerous localities. Rather, it is the unsafe
practice of sending American citizens into areas we consider dangerous
that is our concern. My consul general has written to several agencies
that have arranged adoptions recently in the Caucasus to suggest that
if they are committed to working in this region, they establish an
arrangement whereby the adoptive parents can accomplish the adoption by
proxy or by some other mechanism that does not endanger their clients.
Russian adoption regulations still delayed
As you know, the Russian government in July 1998 amended its family
code with respect to international adoptions. However, the government
still has not announced guidelines and regulations to implement the
law. The guidelines will address important matters such the
registration of foreign adoption agencies, and documentary requirements
for foreign adoptions. Once the regulations are known, we expect that
foreign adoptions in Russia will become more time-consuming and
expensive. We are nonetheless confident that foreign adoptions will
continue.
Lacking guidelines since the law was amended, there has been even
less uniformity than usual in how Russia’s eighty nine jurisdictions
have processed adoptions. This has caused some adoptions to be delayed.
As I mentioned to you in my last update, the court in Irkutsk has been
particularly obstructionist. To ameliorate the situation, we have
invited a member of the Irkutsk court that handles adoptions to visit
the U.S. as a participant in a United States Information Agency-
sponsored program entitled “Russian Children and America:
Understanding the U.S. Adoption Process.” The judge has accepted our
invitation and will travel to the U.S. in late June and return to
Russia in early July. USIA, the sponsoring agency, is arranging for the
judge and other participants in the program to meet with Congressional
members and staff. Also, an embassy officer will travel to Irkutsk next
week to meet with local officials to discuss ways of allowing adoptions
to proceed.
Fiancees
While it has become a well-known fact that embassy Moscow issues
more orphan visas than any other post in the world, you may not be
aware that we also handle a large number of fiance (k-i) visas. We are
second only to Manila in the volume of fiance visa cases processed, and
the number is steadily rising. In order to improve customer service to
the prospective brides and grooms, my consul general has Worked out an
expedited scheduling plan that in most Instances allows us to process a
fiance visa in about four weeks, the minimum time necessary to complete
the required name check. This has cut the waiting time by fifty
percent. Once we receive an approved fiance petition from INS, and
assuming the applicant is otherwise qualified, we can issue the visa
the same day as the interview.
I want to assure you that we will continue to do all that we can to
assist U.S. citizens with adoptions and other visa matters, and to keep
you informed of developments here.
Sincerely,
James F. Collins, Ambassador,
American Embassy, Moscow.
__________

Statement Submitted by William Pierce, National Council for Adoption

Mr. Chairman, the National Council For Adoption (NCFA) welcomes
this opportunity to submit testimony on S. 682, the Intercountry
Adoption Act. We are pleased and honored by your leadership in respect
to this important legislation. We are also grateful for the bipartisan
nature of S. 682, as reflected by the co-sponsorship of Sen. Mary
Landrieu (D-LA). We have participated in and closely monitored the
progress of the Hague Convention for a decade and, based on our
experience, we believe that, all things considered, S. 682 is the
superior legislative approach and therefore strongly endorse your bill.
NCFA is a national organization, formed in 1980, which has four
major functions–part research body, part public education body, part
advocacy group and part membership group. This statement reflects our
interests in all four categories.
In terms of research, we have looked closely at intercountry
adoption issues and professionally, I have been involved with the issue
for more than 30 years of my career in social services. For the last 10
years, I have spent perhaps half of my time on the Hague Convention,
first in preparation for the sessions, then as a member of the U.S.
Delegation, and since 1993, working collaboratively with people in the
U.S. and around the world to ensure that implementation is as
appropriate as possible.
In terms of public education, we spend an enormous amount of time
trying to convince people who are interested in adopting abroad to do
their homework and do it right, but many people do not listen and then
make major, life-changing mistakes. We also take many, many calls and
complaints, some forwarded by government agencies, some by elected
officials, trying to help citizens after the fact.
In terms of advocacy, we have, thanks to your excellent staff and
their outreach to the broad adoption community, had an opportunity to
provide our views about implementing legislation prior to the
introduction of S. 682 and subsequent to S. 682’s introduction. We have
provided your staff with extremely detailed suggestions for making a
good bill even better and we will not repeat those voluminous remarks
in this Statement.
In terms of membership, we are perhaps unique in that we have as
members not-for-profit adoption agencies, adoption attorneys, social
workers, physicians, adoptive parents, adult adopted persons, persons
who have placed children for adoption, academics, members of the
media–in short, several thousand persons in every state and even some
members in other countries. Perhaps half of our present membership of
130 member agencies is currently involved in some fashion in the
provision of services to persons considering international adoption,
and virtually all the rest are considering this area of service because
of the tremendous numbers of children languishing, without families, in
other countries. Of our attorney membership, only a small percentage
currently are involved with intercountry adoption, just as only a tiny
percentage of attorneys generally are presently involved with
intercountry adoption, except for re-adoptions here in the U.S.
But, and this should be stressed, our views here and always are not
primarily those of a professional association of either agencies or
attorneys: we see our constituents as a much broader group including
women faced with crisis pregnancies, children who have a right to live
with parents who are willing and able to provide them with a sound
moral framework in which to grow to responsible, productive adulthood
and not just a place and family to live with. For that reason, we are
frequently seen as a critic of poor adoption services, and rightly so:
we believe that the best way to protect the good things in
international adoption is to ensure that the incompetent, whether well-
meaning or not, and the unethical are not in the ranks of adoption
providers here or abroad.
We are also sometimes seen as not sufficiently responsive to the
interests of children, especially children who have been adopted as
minors and who, as adults, believe that they have a right to intrude
into the lives of the women who bravely and humanely granted them both
the opportunity to be born and the chance for a better life. We are
keenly aware of the challenges facing women who are pregnant, and who
are often unmarried–challenges which are complicated by religious,
ethnic, political, language, cultural and national differences. Not
every woman who chooses adoption or feels she has no real choice but
adoption, given the circumstances in which she finds herself, fits the
media stereotype of a birth mother anxious to have the adopted person
come knocking at her door. In some countries and in some cultures, a
knock on the door may be far more than an embarrassment or an uncaring
exhibition of curiosity–it may literally destroy lives. The American
culture, with its all-too-frequent preoccupation with sexuality and
casual acceptance of nonmarital relationships that result in pregnancy,
is not the sort of culture from which many of the children who come to
the U.S. for adoption originate. I believe that the American approach
to human rights and the rights of women to place their babies with
whomever they choose, within the laws that prevent baby-selling and
obviously improper activity, should be respected. That means, in my
view, that a woman should have the right, without any governmental view
that the country “owns” children interfering, to exercise her
Constitutionally-protected right to travel, whether pregnant or with
her baby, and to arrange an adoption. If, for instance, she was born in
Mexico, or Canada, or Ireland, or the Philippines–or any other country
other than the U.S.–she should have the option of returning there or
going wherever she wishes to place her child with the parents of her
choice or through the adoption provider of her choice. By what
reasoning should our government try to second-guess her decision? It
certainly is obvious that at present a woman who is a U.S. citizen has
the opportunity to travel abroad if she wishes to arrange an abortion
and she should have exactly the same right to travel abroad if she
wishes to arrange an adoption.
We now offer comments on some of the topics that have been raised
during the years the Hague Convention has been under discussion,
including topics or statements made in connection with the Oct. 5,
1999, hearing.
The U.S. as the major adopting country. Asst. Sec. Mary Ryan and
others have stated that they believe that the U.S. adopts more children
from abroad than all other countries combined. I note for the record
that no data were presented to support this estimate. The fact is that
there are other countries and localities, Quebec Province being just
one example, where the rate of adoptions from other countries exceeds
that of the U.S. Gross numbers alone may distort the picture since the
U.S. is a nation with a very large population.
HHS and its role in intercountry adoption and the Hague Convention.
As a professional, I have worked in Washington since 1969 and had
numerous interactions with the various federal agencies which have been
mentioned as having a role in implementing the Convention. The fact is
that one of the reasons we strongly support S. 682 is that the bill
recognizes the necessity for locating the responsibility squarely in
the Department of State. HHS indeed is the lead agency for domestic,
special needs adoptions but its role during the last 20 years in
particular has been anything but positive in respect to intercountry
adoptions in general and to adoptions of children across racial and
ethnic lines in particular. There have been numerous occasions when
former U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who represented Ohio, has
criticized HHS for its failure to carry out his MultiEthnic Placement
Act. Some of these critiques have been before Congressional hearings,
others with the media and this last Spring in a panel presentation at
our Annual Conference. Because intercountry adoption is almost always
interethnic and substantially inter-racial in nature, it would be a
grave error to allow HHS to play any role whatsoever of a substantive
nature in the implementing legislation. HHS has also demonstrated its
lack of interest by its absence from the policy discussions of
intercountry adoption since 1989. I did not see HHS as part of the U.S.
Delegation. Only when implementing legislation began to be discussed
and there was a need to consider what agency would have the role of
overseeing agency accreditation did HHS appear. HHS does have
substantial experience in some accreditation functions but not in
intercountry adoption. Whichever federal agency is assigned this role
by Congress, and I urge the Committee to hold fast to a single
designation for State, that agency will need to hire consultants or
staff or train existing personnel to gear up for the responsibility. It
will be just as easy for State to do this as HHS and since State has a
reputation for being adoption-friendly and helpful to citizens
traveling overseas to adopt, State is quite properly the best choice.
State is the only agency of the three agencies mentioned in hearings
and discussions–State, INS and HHS–with any sort of track record of
responsiveness to citizens, or even to Congress. Not a month goes by
that I do not receive a call from some Member of Congress who is
frustrated by a lack of responsiveness from INS, and INS is head-and-
shoulders above HHS in its competence and ability to work in
international adoptions. The surest way to miss deadlines and to foul
up international adoptions for U.S. citizens is to allow HHS to get
involved in the process. There are many reasons why HHS has not been
involved to date, not the least of which is its “family preservation
at all costs” philosophy, an approach which sometimes even intrudes
into the refugee and AID precincts of State.
Abuses and problems as a reason for the Convention. Many of those
who comment on the Convention focus on the relatively few abuses and
problems in intercountry adoption rather than the astounding successes.
This focus on the negative was present in the 1960s and continues to
this day, a reflection of the fact that there have been isolated
instances of problems–trafficking and fraud and bribery and
misrepresentation and ineptitude–which have gotten headlines. And the
light of public opinion is a strong disinfectant, one we like to see
applied liberally. There were terrible miscarriages of justice in
Argentina and some bad practices in Colombia (before our Ambassador
helped his colleagues in Colombia root out the problematic people and
organizations) and some mis-steps with the Vietnamese Baby Lift and
some well-intentioned movements to pull children out of war-torn or
disaster areas. But these are a minority of cases, and no reason to
discard adoption across national borders. It is statistically
predictable that there will be problems in any field of endeavor and
our job is not to shut down those activities but to root out wrongdoers
and prevent any repetition of improper, illegal or unethical acts. The
Convention is designed to help ensure that when such problems arise
they will be promptly and effectively dealt with. The Convention will
ensure that intercountry adoption is as “clean” as humanly possible.
Case-tracking and the temptations of public servants to expand.
During these years of discussions, the matter of “case-tracking” has
come up again and again and we would like to draw your attention to
this matter. While no doubt there will be a need for State to develop a
system, and INS will need to be involved, there are concerns about the
size and scope of this case-tracking system. As a part of a delegation
of organizations working under the ad hoc “Hague Alliance” I recall
vividly hearing an exchange between two individuals, one from State and
one from INS, the sense of which was that State and INS intended to
spend a great deal of time and perhaps as much as a million dollars
developing a tracking system. I would urge the Committee to keep a
close eye on this case tracking system, so that it does not become
either a waste of taxpayer or appropriated funds, or that it delays
implementation of the Convention. The Convention should not be used as
the excuse to do what well-intentioned public servants have had on
their agenda for years.
Post-placement and post-finalization involvement of government.
These are two very important issues that we respectfully urge the
Committee to monitor. First of all, there is a significant difference
between post-placement and post-finalization. Once an adoption has been
finalized by a court, and this is usually a court in the child’s
country of origin, that is a complete adoption. That family is legally
the same as a family formed by biology and should not be subject to
ongoing monitoring and especially should not be subject to intrusion.
In the U.S., we do not interfere in the sanctity of the family without
very good cause, and an adoptive family is no different than a family
formed through biological reproduction within marriage. It is clear
that countries of origin are concerned with the outcome of children
placed with American and other families and who grow up outside the
countries of their births. It should be possible for voluntary
understandings to be reached which accommodate the legitimate interests
of the orphanage and other officials to know how the children are
faring, in a general way. But neither government entities nor adoption
providers can or should be empowered to play “Big Brother” for the
years of an adopted child’s minority. This is an area where sound
diplomacy and extremely good adoption practice can combine to protect
family autonomy and reassure countries of origin. Secondly, there have
been many references made to “post-adoption services” during the
years the Convention has been under consideration and we would like to
point out some concerns about this aspect of adoption. First, there is
virtually no limit to what the government could end up paying for if
“post-adoption services” becomes a feature that must be paid for as a
part of international adoption services. Just as foster care and other
related services have mushroomed into a multi-billion dollar
“industry” so also could the present crowd of consultants, so-called
experts and actual experts do to international adoption what they have
done to domestic adoption. We urge great caution in respect to any
mention of “post-adoption services” in legislation and specifically
suggest that any regulations relating to this subject be required to be
cleared in advance by the Committee on Foreign Relations because of the
professional and diplomatic considerations involved.
Uniformity among the States. Adoption is a matter of family law and
in essence should be left to the various states. Although there are
claims about “trends” and “the movement of the field” in one
direction or another, much of this discussion is a matter of wishful
thinking on the part of advocates for one position or another. As a
case in point, consider North Carolina and its laws on privacy of
adoption records. Although a number of state legislatures have seen
fit, unwisely in our opinion, to water down promises made to women who
bravely chose adoption for their babies and to retroactively change
laws so as to inhumanely destroy their reputations and lives, North
Carolina has not done so. Neither have a number of other states moved
to allow adopted persons to disrupt the lives of the women (and, less
frequently, men) who made it possible for them to have the gift of life
with parents who were ready and willing to take on child-rearing
responsibilities. The most ambitious move to achieve uniformity, the
Uniform Adoption Act, has been endorsed and actually supported by
groups like the American Bar Association and NCFA, but not the American
Academy of Adoption Attorneys. We find it odd that some have testified
as to the need for uniformity in international laws about adoption
while resisting rather minimal uniformity in domestic laws about
adoption. We strongly urge that, to the extent possible, the Committee
resist attempts to “federalize” adoption laws, even in supposedly
innocuous plans such as setting up Federal Adoption Reunion Registries,
a pet scheme of Sen. Levin of Michigan for two decades. It is true that
state licensing is uneven in its content and application. So also is
state monitoring of intercountry adoption operations and complaint
processing. But the only thing worse than imperfect administration of
programs at the state level is imperfect administration of programs at
the federal level, with the complications of dozens of jurisdictions
and the necessity for layers and layers of bureaucracy.
Accreditation, approval and quality considerations. Great hopes
have been attached to the accreditation of agencies as a means of
ensuring quality services for American citizens and proper protection
for children. And undoubtedly, if accreditation is properly carried
out, the net effect will be an improvement of quality. But
accreditation is essentially a consultative process, not a policing
process, at least as carried out by human services accrediting bodies.
Therefore, there should be no illusion about any accreditation, even if
NCFA were to take on such a role (and this is highly unlikely),
guaranteeing or ensuring quality. I have spent nearly 30 years working
in the field and seeing first-hand how membership standards and
accreditation actually work and can assure the Committee that these are
very much a matter of art and not science. At bottom, there are many
variables which account for quality: staff; supervision; turnover;
board leadership; dedication to mission; consumer service; financial
accountability; creativity; flexibility; relationship of fees to
services provided; activity of consultants, contract employees and
various facilitators. An agency I would rate as “A” one year may, in
the course of a few months, become a “C” agency because its CEO has
retired and its director of intercountry adoption services has
resigned. By the same token, an agency that is new or struggling or
marginal can substantially improve its quality of service and go from a
“D” to a “B.” The same is true for those who may be seeking
approval under the Convention. Just as there are good agencies and
marginal or bad agencies, there are good attorneys and social workers
and marginal or bad attorneys and social workers. Good as the oversight
of accreditation will be from State, I can assure you that even if I
had that task (and I will not have that assignment) there would still
be a need for independent and ongoing monitoring by others in State to
ensure that citizen complaints are promptly answered and actions taken
to improve services. Accreditation or approval, even if it met the sort
of requirements I outlined in the law review article published in 1996
by the Catholic University of America, which is provided as an
attachment to this Statement, would still not provide the sort of
assurances that the Committee would prefer.
Adoption counseling. Much has been made of the difficulty that
would be encountered were S. 682’s provisions calling for pre-adoption
education and preparation of prospective adoptive parents. There are
many models available which the Committee could use to tailor more
precisely its language, but the essential wisdom of the provision
remains. To ensure that something happens to help prepare people for
the challenges of intercountry adoption, there needs to be a specific
requirement in the law. Certainly there will be uneven application of
the requirement. Some training will be better because the people
preparing the curriculum or doing the training are more experienced and
competent. We urge the Committee to require at least one hour of
training per week over a period of six weeks and leave the details of
the training to regulations.
Adoption provider responsibility. Most intercountry adoptions today
are finalized prior to the time that the child leaves her or his
country of origin, so that if a placement breaks down it usually is
after the child comes home to the U.S. with the adopting family. We
believe that it is proper for the implementing legislation to address
the issue of provider responsibility. Our view is that the law should
require the adoption provider, whether an agency, an attorney, a social
worker or any other entity, to provide for permanent legal parents for
the children they place. This means that if an adoption breaks down,
there should be a clear responsibility for the provider to take custody
and responsibility for the child if the adoption has not been finalized
by a court. For finalized adoptions, we believe that the legislation
should strongly encourage but not require adoption providers to step
in, because it is impractical to hold providers responsible. In terms
of those few adoptions that do break down after court finalization, we
believe that data should be gathered but in such a fashion as to
respect the privacy of the family and within the practical limits of
adoption providers.
Central information source. We noted with interest the statement in
Asst. Sec. Ryan’s statement that “Under the Convention, the U.S.
Central Authority will arrange for access to a central source of
information on U.S. state laws relevant to intercountry adoption.” We
are concerned about how this statement might be implemented, given the
past history of adoption information and the federal government. A GAO
study, INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION: Procedures Are Reasonable, But Sometimes
Inefficiently Administered, April 1993 (GAO/NSIAN-93-83), done at the
request of Sen. Specter of Pennsylvania commented, at p. 29, on the one
HHS activity that directly related to intercountry adoption, the
National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, operated under contract.
The GAO report says “The information is broad based and generally
useful, but it contains some mistakes that could cause a processing
delay or confusion. For example, prospective parents are advised that
an approved home study is needed when submitting an orphan application
for advance processing when, in fact, the home study may be admitted
later. Also, according to the [NAIC] information, the orphan petition
should be filed when the child is legally adopted in the foreign court.
To the contrary, it should be filed as soon as possible [emphasis
added].” We hope that the Committee would preclude any use of HHS or
its Clearinghouses to provide such information. We also experience,
each day, dozens of calls from citizens who have not been able to get
answers from any other source and call us thinking that somehow we are
a federal, taxpayer-supported organization. We clarify that we are a
private charity but do try to help, especially if a person or couple is
about to make a terrible or costly error. We even take calls from
citizens of other countries who are temporarily residing in the U.S.,
who have been referred by their embassies to us. The kind of
information Asst. Sec. Ryan mentioned is critical to provide and we
urge the Committee to ensure that this information be provided by
State, or if not directly by State, by competent, adoption-savvy and
adoption-friendly sources. Today, much excellent information is on the
internet and State has excellent resources on its site but there is
also a great deal of misleading information.
Limiting adoption to married couples. One of the aspects of S. 682
which has drawn comment is the requirement that U.S. children who are
adopted by persons who are citizens of other countries be adopted only
by married couples composed of a male and a female. Some of the
comments and statements have called this “an unprecedented standard”
and predict various dire consequences. For the record, we would point
out, as Susan Cox of Holt did in her oral testimony, that the country
which has the longest and, arguably, the most successful intercountry
adoption program, the Republic of Korea, has had a general rule of this
sort from the outset. There have been exceptions, of course, as there
always are to general rules, for good cause. But the policy has been
proven out in research findings which have reflected outstanding
results for children from Korea adopted by American couples. Korea’s
policy has not restrained other countries, such as China or Russia or
Colombia or others, to put any similar restriction in place. If this is
an approach which the Committee believes is best for American children,
then we would strongly support this viewpoint not just because of the
precedent from Korea but because of the evidence from child development
research as well as common sense, evidence once again confirmed by the
comments in the Hearing, that all things being equal a child benefits
from having a Mom and a Dad rather than only a Mom or, less frequently,
only a Dad. We are aware that there are groups who wish to expand on
adoption practices allowed in some states and allow unmarried couples,
whether of the same gender or otherwise, to adopt. We are gravely
concerned about this approach and urge the Committee to reject such a
drastic step. Those who cannot or will not commit to each other legally
can hardly commit to a lifetime of parenting and legal responsibility
for a child. By the same token, we are quite aware and applaud the many
single parents who have stepped forward and are very successfully
raising adopted children. We would not wish our concerns about
adoptions by unmarried couples to be misread as opposition to adoption
by single, unmarried persons when the situation is in the best
interests of the child.
Twelve month waiting period. We have serious concerns about this
provision in S. 682 for the reasons outlined at length in previous
communications to the staff of the Chairman. We urge its deletion or,
if any waiting period is retained, that it be applied only to those
children who are within the public child welfare system. Any waiting
period for newborn children would be profoundly problematic and could
lead to unintended consequences. As stated above, we believe that if a
woman wishes to plan adoption for her newborn, this is her right and is
not subject to interference by federal, state or local officials, by
tribal or parental interests, or by any other party except, where
indicated and appropriate under applicable state law, the biological
father of the baby. On the other hand, an argument could be made that
if a child is a ward of the state then the state could determine to
wait a year and seek a U.S. family for the child. We would hope that
such a policy decision would not be made, but it would have the virtue
of recognizing “parental” or “in loco parentis” status.
Privacy considerations. Having been a member of the U.S.
Delegation, I had the privilege of hearing the debate at The Hague
about privacy. It is clear that many sending countries desire to
protect the privacy of biological parents. It is also clear that some
of the receiving countries, especially those in Western Europe, have
views on privacy that are quite different–views that would place the
rights of the child to intrude upon a parent above the rights of the
very parent who carefully decided to carry a baby to term or to place a
child for adoption precisely because of privacy guarantees. We urge you
to ensure that those privacy guarantees are respected and, as
necessary, that loopholes which would endanger the reputation (and at
times, the very life) of a woman would be closed.
Findings on outcomes of children. There have been various reports
issued about the health and developmental status of adopted children
prior to and as part of the Hearing. We would urge the Committee to
carefully review any claims about outcomes and determine how much
scientific validity is present. It is true that substantial numbers of
children from Romania (and to a lesser extent, from other Eastern
European countries) have been diagnosed with serious developmental and
other problems. Reports on these children, however, are largely from a
self-referred sample and are likely to be the result of well-meaning
attempts to provide homes to children who were portrayed on the media
as languishing in orphanages established in Romania’s Ceaucescu era.
Similarly, reports of good outcomes for children from Eastern Europe,
at least to date, appear to be from selected samples. Much more study
is required before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about
children from Eastern Europe.
Consumers of adoption service. We have noted with interest some of
the letters and statements provided to the Committee for the Hearing,
especially those which reflect profound dissatisfaction with services.
We urge the Committee to import into S. 682 substantial portions of
legislation drafted by Rep. James Traficant of Ohio, legislation which
aims to improve the odds that consumers of adoption service will have
information they need to make informed choices. We would also point out
that these consumer protections are part of the assignment that all
Central Authorities are expected to take on not just in respect to
their own citizens but in order to be able to exchange information with
other Central Authorities.
Conclusion. We are deeply grateful to the Chairman for his
leadership on this important issue. We believe that S. 682 is a sound
piece of legislation. As Sen. Landrieu stated in the Hearing, it is not
“perfect” but it is an astounding contribution to intercountry
adoption and to the millions of children whose futures depend on the
Hague Convention–now and in the years to come. We urge the Senate to
approve S. 682 and stand ready to be of assistance or counsel as the
legislative process moves forward. We respectfully request that the
Senate complete its work during this calendar year. The birth mothers,
the children and the adoptive families need action now.
__________

Statement Submitted by the Child Welfare League of America

The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) welcomes this
opportunity to submit testimony on S. 682, the Intercountry Adoption
Act. We commend the efforts of the bill’s bipartisan sponsors for
taking steps to both ratify the Convention on Protection of Children
and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) a
id to put forth legislation to implement the Convention.
CWLA is an 80-year-old association of more than 1,000 public and
private nonprofit community-based agencies that serve more than three
million children, youth, and families each year. CWLA member agencies
provide the wide array of services necessary to protect and care for
abused and neglected children, including child protective services,
family preservation, family foster care, treatment foster care,
residential group care, adolescent pregnancy prevention, child day
care, emergency shelter care, independent living, youth development,
and adoption. Nearly 400 of our member agencies provide services that
enable children to secure loving, permanent families through adoption.
Of that total, approximately 125 agencies provide international
adoption services.
CWLA and our member agencies were active participants throughout
the convention process. The Child Welfare League of Canada’s former
executive director was part of the official delegation from Canada to
the Hague Conference on Private International Law that led to the
enactment of the Convention on Intercountry Adoption. CWLA provided
direct input to the official United States delegation during the
negotiations leading up to the United Stat s signing the treaty in
1994. CWLA member agencies were represented on the Study Group on
Intercountry Adoption convened by the United States Department of
State. Following the adoption of the Convention, CWLA member agencies
and others in the forefront of intercountry adoptions drafted
accreditation standards consistent with the Convention. These draft
accreditation standards are available for review and/or revision and
implementation by the United States central authority to be designated
in legislation to implement the treaty. CWLA also provided input into
the proposed implementing legislation transmitted to Congress by the
Administration.
need for action
Intercountry adoption can offer children the advantage of a
permanent family for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or
her country of origin. Increasingly, families in the United States are
choosing to build their families by adopting children from abroad. The
number of children from other countries who were adopted by families in
the United States has nearly doubled in the past 10 years.

<bullet> In the last 10 years, almost 100,000 children have joined
United States families through intercountry adoption.
<bullet> In 1988, a total of 9,356 international adoptions were
completed.
<bullet> In 1998, 15,774 international adoptions were completed in
the United States. That number is expected to increase
significantly in the next decade.

There is substantial public and governmental interest in attending
to and monitoring the international process to protect children from
exploitation and abuse and further to ensure their safety and well-
being. Recognizing this need, the United States signed the Convention
on Intercountry Adoption in 1994. The Convention prescribes a framework
for cooperation and a legal structure to safeguard children, birth
parents, and adoptive parents involved in intercountry adoption. The
Convention addresses safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions
are in the best interest of children. It establishes a system of
cooperation among countries to prevent abduction, sale of, or traffic
in children.
The United States signing of the Convention was only the first
step. The treaty is not legally binding until it is ratified by the
United States Senate. To become operational, implementing legislation
also needs to be passed by both the House and Senate. As other
countries ratify the Convention, they agree to place children for
adoption only with countries that offer the same protections. Delay or
failure of the United States to ratify and implement the treaty could
result in thousands of American families not being able to adopt
children from other countries.
comments on provisons of s. 682
We agree with the important goal of the legislation: to ensure that
children joining families through adoption across national borders be
better protected. Today we offer comments and recommendations on S.
682.
Establishment of Central Authority
The United States is unique from other countries in that adoption
is governed by state laws, which leads to as many as 50 different
offices with related but somewhat different eligibility requirements,
forms, and procedures for other foreign governments to interact with to
complete an intercountry adoption. This variability is very confusing
to other countries that have one central authority for handling
adoptions and one set of eligibility requirements, forms, and
procedures.
Establishing a national central authority will ensure that the
United States has a single authoritative source of information about
the laws and procedures for intercountry adoptions in the United
States. The central authority will serve as a single point of contact
for other party countries to look for reliable information about
adoption laws in the United States. The central authority will also be
responsible for monitoring United States implementation of the
Convention, to ensure that the adoption procedures outlined in the
Convention are followed. These procedures include ensuring that the
necessary consents for adoption have been obtained, the country sending
the children has determined that the child is eligible for adoption,
and the country receiving the child has determined that the potential
adoptive parents are eligible and suited to adopt. S. 682 designates
the United States Department of State as the central authority with
total responsibility for these functions. CWLA agrees that the State
Department should have a pivotal role in overseeing intercountry
adoptions.
Accreditation Oversight
Under the Convention, all agencies providing international adoption
services have to be accredited. CWLA helped prepare draft accreditation
standards that are now available for review and/or revision and
implementation by the designated United States Central Authority. These
standards of practice detail the fundamental requirements for providing
quality intercountry adoption services. Given the complexity of
intercountry adoption, standards of practice need to be consistent
throughout the country, and agencies need to be accredited to
demonstrate their competence in this specialized field of adoption.
This accreditation process will ensure that agencies doing adoption
services are reputable, have knowledge of the special issues and
expertise needed to do intercountry adoptions competently, and follow
sound business practices.
Licensed, nonprofit adoption agencies play a pivotal role in
ensuring protections both for the children and the families seeking to
adopt. Although independent intercountry adoptions have been possible
in the United States and can continue under the Convention, CWLA
believes that, due to the complexities inherent in adoption, all
adoptions, domestic or intercountry, need to be completed through a
licensed, nonprofit social service agency. The added complexity of
intercountry adoption increases the need for the involvement of social
service agencies to ensure that the children have been voluntarily
released by their birth parents or freed for adoption in a legally
correct manner, and that services were offered to birth parents if they
are known, to ensure that they made an uncoerced decision with full
knowledge of the implications of their decision.
Social service agencies are also in the best position to prepare
families for the challenging and rewarding experience of intercountry
adoption and to support them following placement and following the
legal completion of their adoptions. Not only do families need to deal
with the usual issues of adoption–grief and loss, attachment,
explaining adoption to their children, assisting with self-concept, and
integrating the reality of both birth family and adoptive family into
their own identities–but they must also be prepared to help children
with abrupt changes in language, customs, food, climate, dress, and
behavioral expectations in their new country.
S. 682 assigns oversight of accreditation to the United States
Department of State. CWLA believes that role should be assigned to the
United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That
agency has the knowledge and expertise in child welfare policy and
practice including adoption services. CWLA suggests that HHS, in
coordination with the Department of State, be delegated the
accreditation responsibilities prescribed by the Convention.
Need for Post-Legal Adoption Services
CWLA strongly recommends that S. 682 add provisions to promote the
development of post-adoption services. Article 9 of the Convention
states that the central authority shall promote the development of
post-adoption services yet, S. 682 makes no provision for these
services. Families adopting children from other countries are likely to
need assistance after the adoption is finalized. In addition to the
issues related to changes in culture and language increasing numbers of
children adopted from other countries are older; in some instances,
they have experienced years of living in orphanages or other
institutions and need help adjusting to living within a family. A
significant number of children are reported to have problems related to
attachment and bonding with their new families. Post-adoption services
such as respite care, counseling, and parent education and training can
support parents in meeting the specific needs of their adopted children
to maintain safe, nurturing, permanent families. Post-adoption services
are the key to preventing adoption disruptions and dissolution and
should be available to all adoptive families.
Married Couple Requirement for the Adoption of U.S. Children
CWLA recommends that the requirement set forth in S. 682, that
parents adopting United States children be a “married man and woman”
be dropped. That proposal creates an unprecedented standard for both
United States or intercountry adoption and creates additional barriers
for children in need of permanent adoptive families. CWLA Standards for
Adoption Practice state that all applicants should have an equal
opportunity to apply for the adoption of children and receive fair and
equal treatment and consideration of their qualifications as adoptive
parents. The needs of the child are always the priority consideration
in adoption. The imposition of this type of limitation may result in
other countries reciprocating by imposing similar restrictions on
United States adoptive parents. This would result in fewer children
finding permanent families CWLA opposes any measure, such as the
restriction contained in S. 682, which would restrict permanency
options for the children in need of permanent families.
Access to Identifying Information
Article 30 of the Convention mandates that information on the child
concerning the child’s origin–in particular information concerning the
identity of his or her parents as well as the medical history–be
preserved. The Convention also states that the child or his or her
representative should have access to such information, under
appropriate guidance, in so far as is permitted by the law of the
state. S. 682, however, prohibits access to identifying information in
adoption records. The evidence is increasingly clear that individuals
who were adopted as children need information about their backgrounds
for their optimal mental health. While such information is often
fragmentary in intercountry adoptions, what is available should be
shared. CWLA suggests that S. 682 be changed so to allow identifying
information to be maintained, and provisions and conditions for access
be determined, as set forth in the Convention.
Twelve-Month Waiting Period to Adopt Children in the United States
S. 682 prohibits the adoption of a child from the United States
until 12 months after the child has been made available for adoption.
CWLA suggests that this provision be dropped. CWLA opposes any
restriction that would delay placement of children into permanent
families. The imposition of this type of limitation may result in other
countries reciprocating by imposing similar restrictions on children
leaving their countries. This would result in unnecessary delays for
children in need of permanent families.
Annual Report on Disrupted Adoptions
The annual report prescribed in S. 682 includes data on the number
of disrupted adoptions, including the reasons for the disruption and
the resolution of the adoption. Disruptions usually refer to ending an
adoption between the time the placement agreement is signed and the
adoption is finalized. In intercountry adoptions, 80% of the adoptions
are finalized in the sending country prior to the child entering the
United States. The burden of measuring disruptions in intercountry
adoptions, therefore, falls exclusively on individual adoptive
families. This requirement imposes an intrusive burden on adoptive
families, violating their right to privacy. We suggest that this data
element be dropped from the annual reporting requirements.
In sum, we again commend this Committee for moving forward to
implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in
Respect of Intercountry Adoption. We applaud the efforts of the
Senators who worked diligently in developing this legislation, which we
believe can and should move forward, with improvements. We look forward
to continuing to work with you to help protect children as they move
across national borders to find loving, permanent families.
__________
American Bar Association,
Governmental Affairs Office,
740 Fifteenth Street, NW,
Washington, DC, September 1, 1999
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden. Jr.,
Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Biden: On behalf of the American Bar Association
(ABA), I write to express our interest in continuing to work with you
and your colleagues on the Committee on Foreign Relations as you hold
hearings on S. 682, the Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation
Act of 1999.
Recently, the ABA Sections of Family Law and International Law
jointly developed the enclosed comments in support of the ratification
of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation
in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and the proposed implementing
legislation, entitled the Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA), submitted by
President Clinton to Senate leaders and Administration officials. The
comments on the proposed IAA are presented on behalf of the Family and
International Law Sections. They have not been approved by the ABA
House of Delegates or the Board of Governors and, accordingly, should
not be construed as representing the position of the Association.
We are writing to transmit these comments and request that this
letter be made part of the record ot the Committee’s hearing of
September 15, 1999 as the debate continues over the many complex issues
involved in developing uniform international legal procedures to govern
intercountry adoptions.
Should you wish to obtain further information on the ABA’s role in
dealing with the Convention or adoption issues, please do not hesitate
to contact Irving Daniels in this office. We look forward to working
with you and your Committee to assist in the passage of this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Evans.
______

American Bar Association,
Section of Family Law,
750 North Lake Shore Drive,
Chicago, IL, May 17, 1999.
The Honorable Mary Landrieu,
Hart Building, Room 702,
2nd & C Streets, NE,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Landrieu: The Section of Family Law and the Section of
International Law and Practice of the American Bar Association (ABA)
submit these comments in support of the ratification of the Hague
Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of
Intercountry Adoption (hereinafter the Hague Convention treaty). We are
also submitting comments on proposed implementing legislation for the
Hague Convention treaty. The proposed implementing legislation includes
the Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation Act of 1999 (IACIA)
(S. 682) which has been introduced to the 106th Congress and the
Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA) which was transmitted by President
Clinton along with the Hague Convention treaty to the 105th Congress.
IAA has not yet been transmitted or introduced to the 106th Congress.
The comments on the legislation are presented on behalf of the
Family and International Law Sections. They have not been approved by
the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors and, accordingly,
should not be construed as representing the policy of the ABA. The
comments, however, are consistent with the ABA’s current resolution,
adopted in February 1994, which urges the United States to ratify the
Hague Convention treaty and urges enactment of legislation to implement
the treaty. The resolution states:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that the
Senate of the United States give its advice and consent to the
ratification of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children
and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, the final
text of which was adopted by the Hague Conference on Private
International Law on May 29, 1993.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Congress of the United
States enact implementing legislation to permit the United
States to participate in this multilateral Convention.

The Hague Convention is a multilateral treaty that sets out uniform
international legal procedures to govern intercountry adoptions while
at the same time recognizing the freedom of each ratifying country to
establish its own system for implementing the Convention. Intercountry
adoptions occur when a country of origin–the home State of a child–
permits adoptive parents from a receiving nation–the home State of the
parents–to adopt and move a child across international borders. The
Hague Convention is the first treaty to endorse intercountry adoption
as an option for children in need of a family as long as the
internationally established norms of the Hague Convention are followed.
We urge Congress to ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoption. The Hague Convention treaty and implementing legislation will
provide a legal framework for facilitating intercountry adoptions.
Without the treaty and accompanying implementing legislation, U.S.
citizens eventually may be unable to adopt abroad as more and more
countries ratify the Hague Convention and require other States to be a
party to the treaty for an intercountry adoption to take place.
Many children, oftentimes in institutions and orphanages, are being
permitted by their country of origin to participate in an intercountry
adoption. U.S. parents are seeking to adopt those children designated
by their country of origin as adoptable. The Hague Convention treaty
standards have thus become crucial to connecting prospective parents
with adoptable children. Without the Hague Convention standards, there
are no internationally recognized norms or procedures to protect the
individual participants involved in the adoption triangle–the child,
the biological parents, and the adoptive parents–or to ensure that
States of origin and receiving States have coordinated with each other
to complete the necessary steps for a final adoption that respects the
legal procedures of each State.
The treaty is an international bridge between adoptable children
and adopting parents. All members of the adoption triangle are
protected by the rules requiring accreditation of adoption agencies and
registration of those agencies with The Hague Conference on
International Law Permanent Bureau. All parties are protected by the
prohibitions against excessive remuneration in any adoption. All
parties’ ability to complete an intercountry adoption is increased by
the creation of Central Authorities–governmental entities in each
participating State responsible for coordinating intercountry
adoptions.
We believe that any implementing legislation should be consistent
with the Hague Convention treaty principles. Our general comments on
any proposed implementing legislation for the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption are listed below. We also make some specific
comments on the IACIA, introduced as S. 682, and on the proposed IAA,
which was transmitted to the 105th Congress, but which has not been
transmitted or introduced to the 106th Congress.

1. The Hague Convention treaty requires that the United States
designate a Central Authority. We support the designation of the U.S.
Department of State as the U.S. Central Authority. The Department of
State negotiated the treaty and has experience with assisting U.S.
parents adopting abroad and with coordinating with other States who are
parties to the Hague Convention. This experience should enable the
Department of State as the Central Authority to keep the adoption
paperwork moving so that parents and their adopted children may come
home without unnecessary delays. Likewise, sufficient funds and
resources should be specifically allocated for the performance of Hague
Convention treaty functions. We support a fee retention mechanism that
permits fees charged to be designated specifically for Central
Authority functions.
2. The Hague Convention treaty legislation may establish a troika
of federal agencies–Department of State, Health and Human Services
(HHS), and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)–to
implement the Hague Convention treaty or just two agencies–Department
of State and INS–may be responsible for implementing the Hague
Convention. Any agencies that are assigned Central Authority functions
should be required to coordinate and consult with each other about
implementing policies and regulations that affect intercountry
adoptions before establishing such policies and regulations.
In the case of INS, for example, the rule that persons immigrating
show proof of certain vaccinations was passed without considering the
effect on immigrating children. After it was implemented and caused
substantial hardship and anguish for traveling families, the
vaccination requirement was changed for immigrating adopted children.
Many adopted children receive no vaccinations in their country of
origin and could not be safely vaccinated before traveling to the
United States. Although the problem was eventually corrected, this
issue could have been avoided if the effect of new policies on
intercountry adoption was considered before implementation.
3. IACIA requires that the Central Authority provide reports on the
status of the Hague Convention treaty and implementing legislation to
appropriate congressional oversight committees on a regular basis once
the Hague Convention treaty has been in force for a set period of time.
We support the statutory requirement of providing annual reports on
intercountry adoptions.
4. An independent advisory or oversight board, consisting of
adoption and international law experts, adoptive parents, agencies and
attorneys working in the field of intercountry adoption, and others who
could provide input and advice on an ongoing basis to the Central
Authority and other federal agencies responsible for implementing the
legislation, should be created. This advisory or oversight board could
ensure that the responsible officials receive timely information about
the implementation of the Hague Convention treaty from the adoption
community.
5. HHS or the State Department may be delegated the accrediting
functions under the Hague Convention. In preparing regulations on the
accreditation of adoption agencies and approved persons for working in
the field of intercountry adoption, either agency should be statutorily
mandated to give serious consideration to recommendations on
accreditation standards from the appropriate adoption groups and
professionals familiar with intercountry adoption practices and
procedures. We support the IACIA and IAA statutory requirement that
consideration be given to such accreditation recommendations.
6. Under the Hague Convention treaty, governmental entities that
provide adoption services have a preferred position. State and local
governmental agencies, under Section 203(b)(3) of the proposed IAA, are
to be considered only as approved persons for the purposes of the
accreditation of governmental entities to provide adoption services
under the Hague Convention. IACIA may require state and local agencies
to meet the same accreditation standards as private agencies. The
legislation should be made consistent with the Hague Convention treaty
so those governmental agencies providing adoption services are granted
preferred status as permitted by the Convention.
7. Under both the IACIA and the proposed IAA, the U.S. Department
of State is designated as the U.S. Central Authority for implementation
of the Hague Convention. The Department of State is responsible for all
“central authority functions,” which is defined as follows in Section
3(8) of IACIA and in Section 2(f) of IAA:

Central Authority Function.–The term “central authority
functions” means the duties imposed upon central authorities
by Chapters III and IV of the (Hague) Convention.

The definition of 11central authority functions” is too narrow.
The reference to Chapters III and IV of the Hague Convention is correct
but the other chapters of the Hague Convention should be included in
the definition. For example, Chapters I, II, V, VI, and VII of the
Hague Convention are not included. Unless the designated U.S. Central
Authority is given responsibility for overall Hague Convention
compliance, not just certain portions or chapters of the Hague
Convention, critical Hague Convention requirements will not be clearly
assigned to a federal agency.
8. The Hague Convention treaty itself does not contain provisions
on voiding adoptions completed under it; however, the proposed IACIA
and IAA contain such provisions in Section 305 on Voiding of Adoptions
for Cause. Under Section 305, an U.S. state court may void a decree,
and must give full effect in the United States to another country’s
proceedings vacating an adoption under the Convention, if certain
requirements specified in the statute are met.
First, the provisions of Section 305(a)(1)(2)(A) assume that in all
cases there would have been birthparent consent or consent by a
relative to the adoption. In abandonment cases, however, consent would
have been properly given at the time of the adoption by an institution
such as an orphanage, and in cases where parental rights were
terminated for abuse or neglect, parties other than the birthparents
would have granted the appropriate consents to the adoption. Thus, the
voiding of adoptions for cause section should recognize other types of
valid consents that were legally recognized under the law of the
country of origin at the time that they were granted. Otherwise, the
mere absence of birthparent consent could be grounds for vacating an
adoption even where such consent was not required at the time the
adoption was granted.
Second, if provisions on voiding adoptions conflict with individual
U.S. state law, the section does not make clear which law will govern–
federal or state. In particular, the reference to state law in Section
305 (a)(2)(A) does not make clear, which “state” law is being
referenced–the U.S. state where the child was adopted or the sending
country from which the child immigrated.
Third, in Section 305 Voiding of Adoption for Cause, the provision
set out in Section (a)(5), stating that no adoption may be voided after
two years has passed since the adoptive parents obtained custody of the
child, should be modified to provide that the two years start to run
when the parents have legal or physical custody of the child, whichever
occurs first.
9. A new certification procedure for Hague Convention intercountry
adoptions in Sections 301 and 302 of IACIA and IAA is created. As set
out, the U.S. Central Authority will certify that a particular adoption
is in compliance with the Hague Convention and the U.S. implementing
legislation. This certification is then sent to INS. INS uses the
certification as the basis for issuing a visa for the adopted child to
immigrate to the United States.
The two sections–Section 301 (b)(l) and 302 (b)(2)–dealing with
this certification procedure are not consistent. Section 301 (b)(1)
requires that the State Department issue the certification (1) when the
Department of State receives appropriate notification from the Central
Authority of the child’s country of origin that the adoption is in
compliance with the Hague Convention and (2) when the Department of
State has verified that the requirements of the IACIA or IAA have been
met. Section 302 (b)(2), however, requires the Department of State to
send to INS a Certification that provides that the Central Authority of
the child’s country of origin notify the U.S. Central Authority that
the adoption is in accordance with the Hague Convention and IACIA or
IAA as the case may be (emphasis added).
The issue is whether the Central Authority of the child’s country
of origin must notify the Department of State that the adoption
complies with both the Hague Convention and the IACIA or the IAA or
whether the Central Authority of the child’s country of origin notifies
the Department of State that the adoption complies with the Hague
Convention and the Department of State determines if the adoption
complies with the U.S. law, i.e., IACIA or IAA. It will be difficult
for the country of origin to represent that the adoption is in
compliance with the U.S. implementing legislation because its access to
the statute and its regulations and knowledge about how to apply the
provisions to a specific case may be limited. The Department of State,
when the United States is the receiving country, would be in a better
position than a foreign jurisdiction to make the determination
necessary for issuing the Hague certification described in IACIA or
IAA.
10. IACIA and IAA impose criminal penalties in Section 404(c)
Criminal Penalties on any person who knowingly and willfully does the
following:

(1) provides adoption services in the United States to
facilitate a Hague adoption without appropriate accreditation
or approval in accordance with title II;
(2) makes a false or fraudulent statement or
misrepresentation of material fact, or offers, gives, solicits
or accepts improper inducement intended to influence or affect:
(A) decisions concerning the accreditation of
agencies and approval of persons to perform adoption
services and central authority functions under this
Act;
(B) the relinquishment of parental rights or parental
consent relating to the adoption of a child within the
scope of this Act;
(C) the decisions or actions of persons and entities
performing central authority functions pursuant to the
Convention and this Act.

The Hague Convention treaty does not require or mandate that any
participating State impose criminal sanctions upon adoption service
providers or any other participants in the intercountry adoption
process. Thus, the criminal sanctions are inconsistent with the Hague
Convention treaty parameters, which were designed to cover the civil
law aspects of intercountry adoption. Criminal sanctions in general may
be unnecessary in light of the Hague Convention treaty’s reliance on
the accreditation and approval process to enforce the standards imposed
upon adoption service providers. Also, the term “improper
inducement,” which applies to both criminal and civil sanctions,
should be clearly defined. The statute needs to make a clear
distinction between improper inducement that is intended to influence a
specific adoption matter and other types of actions frequently
undertaken by adoption agencies or by adoptive parents, such as making
ongoing charitable contributions to orphanages of medical supplies,
toys, or clothing. These charitable contributions are typically not
intended to induce a specific action by an institution caring for
children. Rather the contribution of supplies by agencies, parent
support groups, and individual parents is designed to assist those
children who remain in the institutions. The statute should clearly
permit humanitarian assistance to go forward without the fear of
criminal sanctions serving to discourage or deter such efforts. We
recommend that a narrow definition of improper inducement be added to
the legislation.
11. The Hague Convention treaty regulates the adoption of
emigrating U.S. children when individuals residing in another Hague
Convention State seek to adopt a child residing in the United States.
The following comments apply to the case of U.S. children emigrating
for the purpose of intercountry adoption:

<bullet> There is no requirement in IACIA or IAA for prospective
adoptive parents, who are residents of another Hague country,
to include the results of a nationwide criminal background
check in their home study, before they are permitted to
finalize an adoption of a U.S. child who will emigrate after
the adoption is completed. Our recommendation is that a
nationwide criminal background check from the receiving State
of the prospective adoptive parents should be required before
they are permitted to adopt an emigrating U.S. child. Certain
criminal offenses, in particular child abuse or neglect or
spousal abuse, should be considered grounds for prohibiting the
intercountry adoption.
<bullet> The Hague Convention treaty, in Article 4 (b), provides that
an adoption shall take place only if the competent authorities
of the State of origin “have determined, after possibilities
for placement of the child within the State of origin have been
given due consideration, that an intercountry adoption is in
the child’s best interests.” (emphasis added). Section 303
(b)(1) (B) of IAA requires that a determination be made that
the child “cannot expeditiously be placed for adoption in the
United States.” (emphasis added).

IAA essentially proposes the policy that U.S. born children should
not be adopted by residents of a receiving State, unless the
child cannot be adopted expeditiously in the United States.
Elsewhere, the proposed implementing statute authorizes the
making of regulations changing procedures for adoption by
relatives, but it is not clear that this will include a
preference for relatives where the child could be placed
expeditiously with nonrelatives who are U.S. residents. The
statute should permit a state court judge to give due
consideration to an adoption by relatives or for other parties
with a “significant relationship” with the child (such as
those who have been responsible for the child for a significant
period of time, or were named in the parent’s will).

IACIA, on the other hand, requires that 12 months must elapse since
the accredited person made efforts to place the child in the
U.S. before a child may be placed in a permanent home in
another Hague country. IACIA also requires that in every case a
determination be made in accordance with the federal Adoption
and Safe Families Act of 1997 that the child cannot be placed
in the U.S.

Overall, we recommend that any implementing legislation mirror the
language in Article 4 (b) of the Hague Convention treaty so
that “due consideration” is given to the opportunity for a
child to be placed in the U.S. The 12-month automatic wait
period may not be in a child’s best interest in every case and
the requirement that there be a finding that the child cannot
be placed expeditiously in the U.S. likewise may not be in the
child’s best interest in all cases. The due consideration
standard from the Hague Convention permits the state court
judge to better consider the individual circumstances of a
particular child.

<bullet> For emigrating children, it would be useful to clarify that
provisions in Article 16 of the Hague Convention, stating that
a Central Authority of the State of origin shall “give due
consideration to a child’s ethnic, religious and cultural
background” is not intended to conflict with provisions of the
federal Multiethnic Placement Act prohibiting delaying or
denying an adoption on the basis of race or ethnic background.
<bullet> Under both IACIA and IAA, state court judges retain the
discretion to issue an adoption decree for an emigrating child,
and in those cases, the courts should be encouraged by statute
or regulation to appoint counsel for the child involved in an
intercountry adoption from the United States.
<bullet> The provision in IACIA Section 303 (b)(1)(B) effectively
prohibits single persons from adopting emigrating U.S. children
and unnecessarily limits the opportunities for children to be
adopted. We recommend that IAA Section 303 (b)(1) be adopted
and that single persons be permitted to adopt emigrating U.S.
children.

12. The Hague Convention, in Article 3, covers intercountry
adoptions between participating States for children before they reach
the age of eighteen years old. As proposed in both statutes, children
over the age of sixteen will continue to not be eligible to immigrate
under the rules governing visas for children adopted by U.S. citizens
abroad. Any legislation should be consistent with the treaty so that
immigrating adopted children up to the age of eighteen may participate
in an intercountry adoption.
13. Some sending countries do not grant a final decree of adoption;
however, they do grant to the adoptive parents legal custody and
permission to immigrate for the purpose of adoption–a process known as
“simple adoption”. Neither IACIA nor IAA say what effect, if any, a
foreign authority’s grant of custody or certification of availability
for adoption should have in an U.S. court. By its silence, the
legislation as written almost invites de novo reconsideration of all
the substantive and procedural aspects of the child’s adoptability that
were made by the sending country. The statute does not specify what law
should apply to questions like the timing of the relinquishment. Any
implementing legislation should at least say that the foreign
authority’s determination regarding adoptability is entitled to
presumption of validity, and that the law of the nation of origin
governs on issues of relinquishment and availability for adoption.
14. The avenues for administrative review of adverse action in the
accreditation of agencies and approved persons are non-existent in the
statutes. The implementing legislation should contain an administrative
review process for those agencies or individuals who are adversely
affected during the accreditation process. The current statutory
structure of providing only judicial review is not adequate.
Administrative review procedures are important because (1) a regulatory
agency is usually better equipped than a federal court to obtain and
review information needed to assess adverse actions at a reasonable
cost, and (2) the dockets in some federal courts are crowded, and a
civil action seeking judicial review may take a very long time to
process.
15. Section 105 (b)(1) of IAA and Section 103 (d)(1) of IACIA
establish a case registry on “all adoptions involving immigration into
the United States, regardless of whether the adoption occurs under the
Convention”. This section implies that data on any adoption involving
immigration, including those of any person who is immigrating to the
U.S. with adopted children, will be included. The registry is
presumably intended to cover just intercountry adoptions under section
101 (f) and (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, i.e., those
where the U.S. parents adopt a child from a sending country regardless
of whether the country is a party to the Hague Convention. The statute
should make clear what adoptions are covered by the registry.
16. The Hague Convention, in Article 31, requires that personal
data gathered or transmitted under the Convention shall be used only
for the purposes for which such data were gathered or transmitted. The
proposed legislation, which establishes certain monitoring and registry
procedures, should make clear that the intent of the legislation is to
be consistent with Article 16 of the treaty. Likewise, in Section 203
(b)(1)(C) of IAA and Section 203 (b)(1)(D) of IACIA a reference should
be made to require accredited agencies to maintain such records and
reports and information in accordance with applicable federal and state
privacy laws.
17. Any fees established by INS, HHS, or the Department of State
for implementing the Hague Convention should be set via a rulemaking
procedure. In particular, the fee amounts to be set under Section 204
(d)(2) of IAA or Section 202 (d)(2) of IACIA should be subject to a
notice and comment rulemaking procedure under the Administrative
Procedure Act.
18. Under Section 205 (d)(1) of IAA and Section 204 (c)(1) of
IACIA, a change should be made so that it is clear that agencies and
adoptive parents can seek judicial review of adverse accrediting
decisions. These sections should also be modified so that the reference
to an adverse action by the federal agency responsible for selecting
the accrediting body includes the cancellation or failure to designate
an accrediting entity or an action whereby the accrediting body fails
to accredit an agency or person for practicing in the field of
intercountry adoption.
19. Both proposed bills do not make clear whether accrediting
agencies must renew their accreditation. The implementing legislation
or regulations need to establish provisions and timeframes for renewal
of accreditation of agencies and approved persons. An accreditation
renewal process for agencies and approved persons would help to ensure
that the standards imposed by the Hague Convention are met on an
ongoing basis.
20. Both IACIA and IAA require the Secretary of State to monitor
the rate of disruption of all intercountry adoptions. The term
“disruption” is not statutorily defined, and the purpose for which
such data will be collected is not stated.
21. The reference in Section 302 (b)(2) of IAA to paragraph (b)(1),
(g) or (h) of section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
appears to be incorrect; the reference is probably intended to be to
(b)(1)(G) or (H).
22. The provision in Section 303 (b)(3)(C) of IACIA and IAA
regarding the responsibilities of accredited agencies providing
intercountry adoption services in the case of an emigrating child
should proscribe that the documentation and information that a U.S.
Central Authority may require an accrediting body to provide must be
identified in published regulations so that agencies know in advance
what specific information must be sent on each individual case.
23. Under both IACIA and IAA, U.S. states may impose additional
requirements upon Hague accredited agencies providing services for
emigrating children. Any such additional requirements should be
required by statute to be transmitted to the U.S. Central Authority,
and the U.S. Central Authority should be required to communicate such
requirements to the Hague Conference Permanent Bureau. Then prospective
adoptive parents from other countries will have ready access to
information regarding the practices of U.S. states.
24. IACIA, unlike IAA, does not permit individual persons, such as
attorneys or social workers, to be accredited to provide adoption
services under the Hague Convention as “approved persons,” a term
defined in Section 2(d) of IAA. We recommend that IAA standards
permitting approved persons, not just accredited agencies, to provide
adoption services be included in the Hague Convention implementing
legislation.
24. We support the changes that both IACIA and IAA make to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) so that adopted children from
Hague participating countries of origin may obtain an U.S. visa in
cases where the child’s birthparents voluntarily consented to the
adoption by the U.S. parents. We endorse the modifications to the INA
that make it possible for more children adopted by parents from the
U.S. to obtain a visa to enter the U.S.
25. We recommend that the implementing legislation include
provisions permitting a child to be granted U.S. citizenship upon
completion of an adoption so that U.S. adoptive parents are not
required to apply for such approval separately.

Our letter does not include comments on each and every aspect of
possible implementing legislation for the Hague Convention treaty. We
do anticipate, however, that additional comments on any various
proposed versions of implementing legislation will be submitted as the
need arises.
In conclusion, we recognize the historical importance of this
landmark treaty. Never before has intercountry adoption received such a
positive endorsement. Many prospective U.S. parents fight their way
through the arduous process of intercountry adoption. Oftentimes they
call upon a Senator or Congressman to assist in ending delays or
unforeseen glitches. In the meantime, children who are eligible for
international adoption wait to be united with loving, adoptive
families. We support the Hague Convention treaty and implementing
legislation that uses sensible and practical legal procedures to
encourage and facilitate the intercountry adoption process.
Our Sections appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Hague
Convention treaty and to provide input and suggestions on implementing
legislation for the treaty.
Respectfully submitted,
Maurice Jay Kutner,
Chair, Section of Family Law.
William M. Hannay,
Chair, Section of International Law and Practice.
__________
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Honorable Chairman Helms, Thank you for the opportunity to testify
at the hearing on “S. 682.” I was so proud of the way you chaired the
meeting. You are my idea of a true gentleman, a trait that is not
always considered necessary in our modern society, yet one I believe to
be the foundation of civilization. You make people feel valued, while
getting to the heart of the issue.
You asked us to comment on our idea of useful disclosure laws: My
analysis is rather blunt, but I trust you will understand my motives
and use it to benefit the children.
Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
Adoption agencies are dependent on foreign facilitators and have
limited control
Unfortunately, in the last few years, the “tail has started
wagging the dog”. Since we do not live overseas, it is necessary to
hire foreign nationals to do the majority of the work. Even though we
pay them, they are still independent. They lack the business skills,
which we take for granted in a free-enterprise society (such as time
management, keeping appointments, performing tasks in a reasonable time
frame, and providing an acceptable level of service).
At worst, they have no loyalty or sense of ethics (as we perceive
ethics) and sell their service to the highest bidder. Since their
service is the adoption of children–well, you can see the obvious
outcome.
If I offer a facilitator reasonable payment for his work, but he
can get hundreds or thousands of dollars elsewhere, he will be gone. If
I ask for complete medicals, great videos, detailed descriptions of the
child, and fast, reliable and honest service; he may very well work for
someone who has easier requirements–or none.
Although, we struggle to provide adequate service to families, it
is getting more difficult. The last time I was in Russia, at least six
people knocked on my door to ask if they could work for Christian World
Adoption. They had no experience in adoption, but where drawn by the
perceived profits. They asked ridiculous fees and promised incredible
things. Although we were experienced enough to turn them away, others
are not.
If these individuals are motivated strictly by money, and not
controlled by ethical, knowledgeable agencies, all sorts of abuses
occur. Officials may be bribed, medical records “fixed,” and children
offered to one family, then taken away when another offers more money.
In some cases, children have even been abducted.
The abuses are rampant and growing. Eventually, it will close
adoption in Russia, as it has in so many other countries. Russians view
adoption as a business because of the money paid, and believe that
capitalism is evil. Since birth, they are taught that capitalism allows
the rich to abuse the poor and that the middle class does not exist.
Every time we bring Russians to the U.S. to visit, they are amazed at
how well our society functions and realize that they have been lied to
all of their lives.
The more adoption turns into a competitive business, the more
difficult it is to help the children. Distrust grows and corruption
flourishes.
China was beginning to have this problem three years ago. The
government was wise enough to outlaw private facilitators and required
that all agencies work through their central authority. They receive
the parents’ dossier, match a child to them,, and approve all of the
foreign adoptions in the country. The criteria are the same for all
families, and the fees are the same.
Foreign facilitators and or government officials have limited control/
authority to provide adequate services
Even when we have foreign facilitators who are good at their job,
they are limited in what they can do. These folks are trying to survive
under communist regimes or democratic rulers who are really dictators;
controlling their countries through oppression, fear or military might.
They have seen friends and families murdered for opposing the
government–they understand that safely means anonymity. They are often
afraid to appear too cooperative, as they may be accused of taking
bribes and “selling” children. Many orphanage directors, caregivers,
judges, doctors, and government officials are not paid to perform, they
are paid to follow orders and not cause trouble (and often they are
paid poorly, or not at all). They are NOT motivated to do the extra
work necessary to complete an adoption.
Their priority is finding enough to eat and keeping safe and warm,
not doing extra paper work for demanding rich Americans.
How do we encourage cooperation and limit corruption?
First, and foremost it is critical that the facilitators not be
able to play adopting parents against each other. As long as a foreign
facilitator can refer a child to any American who holds a Home Study,
they will act as “free agents.” While competition might be good in
some industries, it has terrible consequences in international
adoption. There are far more parents who want healthy, Caucasian
infants than there are children available. It drives up cost, and
allows facilitators to do substandard work, or worse.
As “S. 682” is written, a parent can adopt without using an
accredited agency
I fear that if the Hague Implementing Legislation is passed as it
is, current practices will NOT change.
Thousands of social workers, exempt from accreditation under the
Hague, are allowed to write Home Studies. With any Home Study, a parent
has the right to adopt directly from a foreign facilitator without
using an accredited agency.
Many agencies, while well intentioned, do not have the budget or
the staff to travel, train, monitor, manage and truly understand the
laws and system of the child’s birth country. They are at the mercy of
the facilitators overseas and do not provide parents with the
protection they need.
Facilitators live in the U.S. and act as agencies without any licensing
Incredibly, there are a large number of people living in the U.S.
who are acting as adoption agencies WITHOUT ANY licensing. They
advertise adoption services on the Internet, in Adoptive Families of
America magazine, in newspapers and appear at trade shows. I personally
know of several, as does Maureen Evans, Director of JCICS. You are
welcome to call us for details. They are not attorneys, and some have
even been denied state licensing. The parents do not realize that these
people are not licensed and the various State Departments of Social
Services are too overwhelmed to do anything.
I know of one Vietnamese mother and daughter who were convicted of
stealing humanitarian aid intended for orphans, who have been denied
licensing in South Carolina, Las Vegas, and Pennsylvania and who have a
class action suit pending against them by angry parents. DSS in SC has
asked me to report their activities and has sent letters to desist; yet
they continue to operate, year in and year out.
It is very discouraging to have these individuals sully the
reputation of agencies, while reputable organizations are working their
hearts out to provide excellent services.
We must make it mandatory that parents process their adoptions through
an accredited agency
Accreditation is a rigorous, process. The standards used by COA
(Council on Accreditation) were written by experts in the international
adoption community based on the Hague. They are relevant and demand
full disclosure of fees and services in every step of the adoption
process. Although nothing is foolproof, I can not think of a better way
to establish and monitor sound practice. Accreditation requires proof
of quality case management, ethical practice and sound financial
status.
I truly believe that accreditation will provide better consumer
protection, because it looks at the total picture and requires agencies
to function in an ethical manner, using sound business and children’s
welfare practices.
If you would like an outline of the standards used to review and
accredit adoption agencies by the Council on Accreditation, I would be
glad to provide it.
Sincerely,
Tomilee Harding,
Executive Director, Christian World Adoption.
__________

Statement Submitted by the National Council of Birthmothers

keep foreign adoption records open
We urge you to kill this bill that would close forever adoption
records of those who are foreign born.
This is a country that prides itself on its freedoms–and welcomes
people from all over the world who come to be a part of this land of
opportunity.
How can this land of freedom and opportunity–extend its hand to
the peoples of the world and use that same hand to slap the face of
adopted people who are foreign born?
We are only beginning to see the tip of the ice berg when it comes
to the horrors that have been visited upon the people’s of other lands
when it comes to foreign adoptions. Is it any wonder that Russia,
India, Korea, China, and other countries are re-examining their
policies on foreign adoption–some in fact closing their borders to
foreign adoption?
Our own STATE DEPARTMENT has travelers warnings for Americans
traveling in Guatemala–NOT TO BE SEEN WITH GUATEMALAN CHILDREN as this
could be very dangerous for them–due to the deplorable record of the
“American adoption” industry operating in that country. An industry
that preys on the poor of that country, that steals children from their
families–and presents them to unsuspecting American families.
This type of activity goes on in many countries around the world.
We read of illegal adoption rings and their practices–involving
foreign countries and individuals within the United States regularly.
The sealing of foreign adoption records will only help to protect
the individuals and groups involved in these illegal activities by
hiding the record of their crimes.
Sealed adoption records are a practice peculiar to the United
States. The majority of the world have open records–in that an adopted
person when they reach adulthood–is given access to the records of
their birth.
It is accepted as a matter of course that an individual has a right
to government held records pertaining to themselves.
In the past few decades we have come to realize the tragedy of
sealed adoption records and the folly of leaving the dispensing of such
information up to the whim of third parties. We have seen adoptees die
from lack of medical information–when such medical information was in
the hands of adoption agencies who refused to pass along the
information–or judges who have decided medical emergency was not
“good cause” to open the records. We have information in case upon
case of government officials willfully defying the law in not providing
critical information to adoptees, adoptive parents, and birthparents.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has the following in their
Policy Statement:

Recent adoption research and considerable anecdotal evidence
challenge the wisdom of maintaining permanent separation of
mature adoptees and their biological families. [2-6] The
interests of each member of the adoption triad often change
over time. As adoptees reach adolescence, their interest in
learning about their biological families frequently increases.
This is almost always unrelated to the degree of stability of
their adoptive family relationship and is usually seen as a
healthy and normal aspect of their personality development.
Concomitantly the interest of birth parents in preserving their
anonymity may diminish over time. Several studies of birth
mothers show that they frequently reconsider and remain
uncomfortable with the decision they made to surrender their
child. [2,5,6] Often their feelings of guilt, grief, and loss
are unresolved, and often they believe that their sense of loss
might be lessened by knowing what actually happened to their
child. Sometimes the third member of the triad, the adoptive
parents, may feel threatened by the desires of their adopted
children to search for birth parents when these children become
adults and begin to develop their own independent lives, [5,6]
but often adoptive parents support their children’s efforts to
search for their birth parents.
As more and more adult adoptees began to challenge
confidential court records and search for their birth parents,
support groups and advocate organizations evolved to help
organize searches and to lobby for less restrictive state laws.
The actual number of adult adoptees who search for
information about their birth parents is unknown but thought to
be a small (yet recently increasing) percentage of total
adoptees, and the motives of those who search are quite varied.
[6] Some are at risk for certain medical problems in which
knowledge of a family medical history is important. Others wish
to have children and want to know more of their genetic and
medical history. (All states require a medical and genetic
history to be obtained at the time of adoption, but these
histories are often incomplete and inaccurate.) Other adult
adoptees just believe that they have a right to find out their
birth names and family heritage to fill the void that makes
them feel incomplete and separates them from their pasts.
Adoption researchers are learning about reunions between
adoptees and the birth parents and the impact these reunions
have on each member of the adoption triad. [5-7] During the
past decade, there seems to have been a change in general
attitude among adoption professionals towered search and
reunion. Previously the idea of searching for one’s birth
family was seen as either harmful and/or neurotic. Now such
searches and reunions are often seen as healthy and a helpful
endeavor for all concerned.

With all we have learned about adoption and its present and future
implication for all the families involved–let us not take a step
backward into the Dark Ages by passing a law that forever renders
foreign born adoptees to the permanent status of second class citizens
in our country.
Let our shores still continue to represent the free and the brave.
Teri Leber,
President, National Council of Birthmothers.
__________
Rosalind Maya Lama,
Santa Cruz, CA 95062.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN: S. 682–TESTIMONY

Dear Senator Helms: Kindly accept this testimony regarding S. 682,
a bill intended to implement the provisions of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption.
I would like to point out that Section 401, containing sealed
records and secrecy provisions, is in violation of the United States
Constitution, in particular the 14th Amendment. It also violates the
Freedom of Information Act–a restriction normally imposed only with
respect to matters of national security. Secrecy and sealing of records
of children brought into the U.S. for the purpose of adoption is
moreover an encouragement to various types of fraud, crime and
violations of civil and human rights. Such secrecy is not in the best
interest of children, adult individuals who are affected by it, or the
State. It is in the best interest of adoption agencies and other
persons who are employed in the adoption and foster care industries,
because it assures a steady stream of children who may be treated as a
commodity. The American public has shown an interest in the conditions
under which consumer goods are produced, such as those manufactured
using child labor, prison labor, and under slave-type working
conditions. The public also has an interest in knowing the origins of
children brought into this country for adoption. Not knowing ones own
origins and history can have tragic and far-reaching consequences for
individuals and society as a whole.
It is a fact that children are obtained through various means
which, if they saw the light of day, could not be legally or morally
permitted. It is a fact that many children who have been brought into
this country for the purpose of adoption end up in foster or
institutional care due to emotional damage stemming from the conditions
in which they were kept prior to entering this country. It is also a
fact that there are at least 500,000 children currently in foster or
institutional care in the U.S. Many of these are free for adoption but
are unwanted due to not being of a preferred color or age. However,
even these rejected children provide a livelihood for employees of
adoption agencies and the various departments of social services that
provide foster and institutional care. It is big business.
The U.S. is the single biggest recipient of foreign children
brought in for the purpose of adoption. The children have included
those who were kidnapped, bought or coerced from poor women, those who
have been abandoned due to draconian legislation regarding reproductive
rights in their home country, and the victims of racial and religious
oppression.
Human beings have natural curiosity and a need to know their own
origins. Children are not a blank slate on which parents, whether
natural or adoptive, can write their own script. Whatever the reason,
psychological, medical, legal or simply in the pursuit of satisfaction,
people in this country have the right to personal information regarding
themselves, and to be treated equally under the law.
I have had personal experience with the closed records adoption
system. In November of 1959 I gave birth to a son, Marcus, in NYC. I
was 16 years old, a senior at the prestigious H.S. of Music and Art.
His father was a fellow student who had graduated in 1958. We had been
high school sweethearts and intended to marry, but this was
objectionable to my parents due to racial differences. We had no desire
or intention to give up our son. My son’s paternal grandparents
expressed their wish to take him home but were prevented from doing so
by the Bureau of Child Welfare and an adoption agency that had become
involved due to my parents efforts. I was able to obtain a record of
the case kept by the Administration for Children’s Services through a
FOIL request, as well as some relevant court documents pertaining to my
prosecution as a delinquent. I was told that if I signed surrender
papers I would not be prosecuted. As I refused, my parents and a
sectarian social service agency connected with the adoption agency
brought charges against me with hopes of having me committed to a
mental asylum for the purpose of terminating my parental rights. At
that time unwed fathers did not have parental rights. My son’s father,
braving the possibility of being prosecuted for statutory rape, signed
paternity papers and paid for unwanted, unnecessary and inhumane foster
care provided by the adoption agency and the Bureau of Child Welfare.
In fact, we did not know, and still do not know, where our son was kept
during the time I supposedly had full legal custody, according to the
documents of the BCW.
It is not necessary at this time to go into the details of the
manner in which a signature on the various documents of surrender was
coerced. The end result was the total psychological destruction of my
son, who died by his own hand at age twenty. Unlike most biracial
children, who probably made up the majority of institutionalized
children at the time, my son was adopted. The adoptive mother, when I
finally found her in 1996, asked me where I had been when she needed
me, and stated that she felt the outcome (of my son’s life) would have
been different if he had had the support of his “true” parents. She
told me my son continually asked for his parents from the time he
entered adolescence. The adoption was a disaster for all concerned,
except for the numerous persons whose livelihood depended on
terminations of parental rights, foster and institutional care,
casework, psychiatry and adoption. The adoptive mother had been
Superintendent of Children’s Institutions in NYC. Her sister-in-law
told me she “found” my son in an institution.
The records I obtained through the FOIL request had been altered,
with numerous additions, deletions, and false quotes and statements in
order to bring the record up to the minimum standards of legality for
the time. A number of these falsifications, including some in my court
record, can easily be verified. This includes a notation on the court
record of my school grade, given as 8th, suspended, in order to give
the impression of feeble-mindedness. I never attended the 8th grade, as
I skipped it, had completed my junior year in high school, been
accepted at the college of my choice, and had taken medical leave from
my senior year.
I will be available to supply further information regarding my own
case and my position that secrecy in adoption practice encourages
various types of cruel and illegal activities which do not serve a
civilized society. I object to adoption triad members such as myself,
adopted children and adults, and adoptive and foster parents not being
called as witnesses in this serious matter.
Yours truly,
Rosalind Maya Lama.
__________
James C. and Dawn M. Dooley,
Fayetteville, AR 72704.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN: S. 682–TESTIMONY
Dear Senators: It is a great concern to me that you have decided to
sponsor S. 682. As adoptive parents, we cannot see where this provision
will benefit anyone related to international adoption. For ourselves,
we feel that our child should have the right to know and find his birth
parents if he so desires. By passing this provision, you are
effectively taking that right away from them. There is also a greater
medical precedence in that if a donor organ is needed or other life
threatening situation, this provision will not allow the adoptee to
gain the information to allow them to continue living. In essence, a
death warrant!
When we decided to adopt internationally, it was not by some
flippant thought or impulse decision. We spent many months deciding if
we wanted to go international or domestic, what country we felt was
best for us. Now based upon our decision our son would be persecuted
for being adopted.
I am further appalled at the decision to only allow members of the
adoption industry to testify. Do we as American citizens no longer have
a voice in what is passed into law? I propose a lottery of adoptive
parents be allowed to testify at this hearing. I am sure it would shed
much light on the proper and correct provision for adoptees.
I am trying to decide if this provision was just poorly written or
does it speak of possible racial prejudice. I would hope that it was
merely a oversight of proofreading that caused this great injustice.
Our son, Elijah Lee, came home on April 16, 1999 and is now at the
wonderful age of 1 year. He does not know about this provision and as
the best parents we can be, are speaking for him on his behalf.
We finally urge you to not sponsor S. 682, Section 401, which goes
against ALL internationally adopted children!
Sincerely,
James C. Dooley,
Dawn M. Dooley.
__________
Marylee Munson Oddo,
Charleston, Illinois.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN: S. 682–TESTIMONY

Dear Sirs and Madam: After reviewing the upcoming legislation of
S.682 on Intercountry Adoption, I must strongly argue against it’s
intent and content, especially section 401. As I interpret it, it
absolutely negates what the original Hague Convention Intercountry
Adoption proposes.
And, Ms. Landrieu, I am quite shocked that you would support such a
move. I was at the International Gathering of the First Generation of
Korean Adoptees in Washington, D.C., as were you, and I find it
particularly disturbing that you, of all people, would support such a
turn. One of the more topical issues discussed in the formal Adoptee
discussion groups was the need and desire to search for information
regarding our biological past. Though many of us Adoptees may not wish
to seek out this type of information AT THIS TIME, we may wish to in
the future. Lacking the desire to search does not equal lack of desire
for freedom of disclosure.
I am also dismayed to hear that the petition I signed at the
Gathering, in support for the Hague Convention, was modified with the
before mentioned changes UNBEKNOWNST to me. I forthwith withdraw my
previous support.
I feel the Federal government should not be maintaining
confidential files on American citizens solely because they were
adopted from outside the U.S. All citizens deserve to be accorded equal
dignity and respect under the law. Specifically restricting the ability
of international adoptees to access their personal files and exempting
them from the Freedom of Information Act is discriminatory and un-
American.
A double standard for adoptee rights is unacceptable. While states
like Oregon and around the country are moving toward opening records to
adoptees, S. 682 threatens to make these gains meaningless for
international adoptees. S. 682 goes against the national trend toward
greater openness.
Many foreign countries, such as Korea, have open records. Yet, S.
682 would perpetually seal the records of adoptees like myself that
enter the U.S. from those countries. We legally lose our right to our
identities and knowledge about our heritage when we become Americans.
Our nation should lead in protection of these rights rather than
following these other nations.
The purpose of the Hague Convention is to mandate accountability
and integrity in the international adoption process, and to provide
minimal standards for protecting the rights of adoptees, including the
right of adoptees to information on their identities and heritage. But
Section 401 of S. 682 appears to go against both the intent and letter
of the Convention.
I personally am trying to find out more information about my
biological past. I have flown to Korea and visited the site of my
former orphanage as well as searched for records that may uncover any
information regarding my birth family and personal history.
Unfortunately, I have uncovered so very little at this time. As an
older adoptee adopted over 33 years ago, searching is a long,
difficult, and often expensive task. But one I feel well worth all my
resources and efforts. Please do not limit or terminate my ability to
search.
I am a Korean adoptee and will support only legislation that:

(1) Acknowledges that all adult adoptees deserve their
records;
(2) All adoptees deserve medical information;
(3) All records should be maintained and preserved;
(4) All adoptees have the right to their identities and
knowledge about their heritage;
(5) Adoptees should have the right to participate in the
drafting of such legislation, as opposed to those who have no
personal knowledge of the situation; and
(6) Senators should recognize and respect that international
adoption is a lifelong process and enable legislation that
reflects that.

Let me finish by saying that I hope that this is legislation that
will happen only after each of you has taken serious time to explore
all realms of it and particularly of the children involved who will
become adults. I would also like to add that I do fully support the
Hague Convention, but in its original form and intent.
Please do not consider only the adoption agencies, birth-parents,
and the adoptive parents for input. Our perspective has been
overlooked. Please consider the perspective of the adoptee as this
directly affects us. I ask you to talk with ADULT adoptees. We also
have first-hand knowledge and experiences on these issues.
Please understand that this is important and it affects people’s
lives. Please forward this to interested parties. Thank you for your
time and consideration on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Marylee Munson Oddo.
__________
Tracy Houser,
Santa Rosa, CA 95401.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, D.C 20510.

ATTN. S. 682–TESTIMONY

Dear Mr. Helms: As an adoptee who has been reunited with my
birthparents for almost 7 years now, I find the possibility of S. 682
passing totally disturbing.
Adoption, contrary to what you may believe, isn’t just about a
young, unwed woman giving birth to an unwanted child and “getting rid
of the problem” by giving it to two wonderful and loving parents to
raise it as their own. Somehow, the world loves to paint the fairy tail
of the grateful little adoptee living happily ever after never
wondering where he or she came from. Almost as if the fact that they
were given up unselfishly by their “first mother” just erases the
fact that she ever existed.
I don’t know why, or how this myth ever evolved, but it’s the most
ludicrous thing I have ever encountered. Where society got the idea
that you could just take a child from it’s mother in the name of
“what’s best for the child,” forge a so-called “birth certificate”
by erasing the child’s natural parents name, and adding in the adoptive
parents instead (and assume this child will never have a need to know
who they are and where they came from) is beyond me.
We, as adoptees, deserve the same rights as any other person who
walks on this earth. Most people in the United States have the freedom
of knowing who their natural parents are (because they are raised by
them), know what their nationality is, know who they look like, and
know their families medical history. We, as adoptees, don’t have these
rights. Somehow this was deemed “fair” by someone in The Stone Ages
and now we have to live with this even in this day in age.
I found my birthparents by going through an “underground.” I paid
$150 to find my birthmother’s last name, and I searched on my own and
found her 3 months later. It is so absurd that I had to actually pay
someone to find out what was rightfully mine to begin with. I don’t
understand why we as adoptees are the one’s that suffer the most when
the whole “adoption process” is supposedly in the “best interest of
the child.” It’s almost as if we have to suffer for the
irresponsibility of our mothers.
Although I had a great childhood with parents that love me dearly,
my adoption affects me on a deeper level that I can’t put into words.
To know that there are still people out there who seriously think it’s
better to keep a child birthright a secret, regardless of where they
were born, makes me sick. Just because a child is born outside the
U.S., and is adopted into the U.S. doesn’t mean their feelings will be
any different from mine. EVERY adoptee should know from the earliest
time possible where they came from, who there natural parents are and
what their names are, and how they can contact their natural parents
when the time is right FOR THE CHILD. It’s time for the lies to stop,
and to truly start making the adoptive child’s best interests a
priority. In terms of “best interests,” the ranking at this point in
time in the adoption triad goes the adoptive parent first (keeping the
child’s adoption records sealed so that the adoptive parent will not be
threatened by a birthmother or birthfather butting into the child’s
life at any time). Second, the birthmother (keeping the child a secret
depending on her circumstance).
And third, the adoptive child (last on the list of priorities of
course, since we never had any say in the matter to begin with).
In closing, I would like to say that I am not anti-adoption. I
believe as a last resort, in cases of abuse, etc., that adoption may be
in the best interest of the child. However, even so, ALL PEOPLE
wherever they are born, MUST know who they are!!! This is totally
unacceptable! Adoptees have needs like everyone else. We are not some
kind of caged animal that you can control as you see fit. It seems
everyone who is NOT adopted comes off as an expert in adoptee
psychology where in reality they truly do not have a clue as to how we
feel or what’s right.
If this bill passes, it will be a big mistake. A child born outside
the U.S. is entitled to know who they are.
They have the right to find the woman who gave birth to them when
they feel they are ready. Every human being should have the right to
know their mother. By taking that right away, you violate everything
this country stands for.
Sincerely,
Tracy Houser.
__________
Ellen Garlich,
Christiansburg, VA 24073.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN. S.682–TESTIMONY

Dear Senator: I am writing in opposition to S. 682–Intercountry
Adoptions Convention Implementation Act of 1999. In particular, I am
concerned about the adoption secrecy provisions contained in Title IV,
Section 401.
First of all I would like to express my concern that people
affected by adoption, such as myself, and international adoption in
particular, have not been invited to testify on this bill. Instead, I
understand that only adoption industry professionals were asked to
present testimony at scheduled hearings for S. 682. Americans who have
experienced adoption firsthand, whether as adoptees, adoptive parents,
or birthparents, are in a position to provide meaningful feedback which
should not be ignored in the drafting of adoption related legislation.
I am an adoptee who has been searching for medical information for
over 17 years. My adoption was handled privately and arranged by a
doctor. It baffles me why no one, especially the doctor, found it
important to get a medical history to pass on. It could have been done
with no identifying information given out to my adoptive parents or
myself. It angers me that as a tax paying citizen I am not entitled to
information pertaining to myself. I am told that it is to protect the
rights of the child. I am no longer a child. I have an ailment that the
doctors can’t pinpoint, and with no medical history it’s like finding a
needle in a haystack. My doctor has even written the state to request
copies of my files, but to no avail. Even my adoptive parents have
written letters, but get the same response. I have children that would
benefit from knowing their mothers medical history. Unless your are an
adoptee, you can’t even relate to what it is like to have no heritage
to pass on to your children, to not even know your nationality or your
genealogy. For a school project, my daughter was to see how far they
could track her ancestors. She couldn’t do it on my side because I
don’t even know it. It’s embarrassing to tell your children “I don’t
know who my ancestors are”, its embarrassing to constantly be asked
what nationality I am and say “I don’t know”. I have nothing to link
myself to. It’s like an empty void that can’t be filled. According to
the Freedom of Information Act, I have a right to any information on
myself, but this law is ignored as well when it comes to adoption. I
should not have to spend thousands of dollars to have a private
investigator find out information that should be my basic rights as an
American tax paying citizen.
I ask you to prayerfully reconsider this bill. S. 682, as proposed,
not only short-changes adoptees, but also goes against the intent of
the Hague Convention, which it claims to “enable”. Consideration
needs to be given to the rights of the adult adoptees to documents held
on them by the government.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my testimony. I
hope that before you even consider passing this bill, that you will
agree to hear testimony from our side, not just testimony from so
called professionals that have not experienced firsthand the effects of
adoption.
Sincerely,
Ellen Garlich.
__________
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
Dear Senator Helms: As an adult Korean adoptee, I write to you out
of a profound concern that the privacy provisions in S. 682–the
Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation Act of 1999 that you
and Sen. Mary Landrieu introduced earlier this year–may actually
contradict both the letter and the spirit of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption that the bill is ostensibly intended to help
implement. The most worrisome provisions in S. 682 are Section 401
(b)(1) and 401 (2)(abc):
401 (b)(1) Consent Required.
Except as provided in subsection (d), identifying information
contained in Convention adoption records shall not be disclosed.
401 (2) Application of Privacy Act.
a. An individual, or an individual’s parent or guardian, who would
otherwise have a right to access any Convention adoption record
pursuant to section 552a of title 5, U.S. Code, shall have such right
with respect to identifying information in such record only to the
extent that such right is not restricted by this section.
b. No Disclosure to Child Under 18. A child who is the subject of a
Convention adoption record shall not be afforded access to identifying
information in such record, and such information shall not be disclosed
to such child, unless the child has reached the age of 18 years.
c. Freedom of Information Act Exemption. Information contained in
records of the Department of State and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service relating to adoption cases subject to the
Convention shall not be disclosed to any person pursuant to section 552
of title 5, U.S. Code.
Rather than help implement the Hague Convention, these privacy
provisions, if enacted into law, would actually undermine it; they
would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for many adult
intercountry adoptees to pursue a search for information on the
circumstances of their birth and adoption; and they would virtually
preclude the possibility of a search for birth parents, even under
conditions of mutual consent. Even in situations in which the birth
mother and an adult adoptee are simultaneously searching for the birth
mother–not an uncommon scenario at all–the privacy provisions of S.
682 would erect an impenetrable wall between the adoptee and the birth
parents. Clearly, the creation of such insurmountable obstacles to
search was not the intent of the Hague Convention and it is contrary to
the emerging consensus within the adoption community about the right of
adult adoptees” access to information about their circumstances of
birth and adoption where such access does not seriously infringe upon
the privacy of the birth parent(s).
Speaking personally, I have recently decided to pursue a search for
my birth parents, and the lack of records from the period of my birth
and adoption (1960-61) and the time already elapsed since then make the
chances of a successful search already low; the privacy provisions of
S. 682, if enacted, would almost certainly deprive me of any additional
information about the circumstances of my birth and adoption. It is
quite possible that my birth mother may still be alive, and she may
even be searching for me; with both of my adoptive parents now dead,
she would be the only parent remaining to me; S. 682 could well ensure
that we never meet again.
I urge you, then, to excise the aforementioned privacy provisions
from S. 682, and I submit this letter as testimony to my opposition to
S. 682 as currently drafted.
Sincerely,
Pauline Park, Ph.D.
__________
Kimberly A. Turner,
New Brighton, MN 55112.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator, As an adult, International Adoptee, and American
citizen, I want to strongly urge you to reconsider provision S. 682 of
the Intercountry Adoption bill.
When I took my two daughters (6 & 4) to see Tarzan this summer, I
got a lot more than the usual kids movie I was expecting. Who would’ve
thought an old story retold (and the accompanying Phil Collins
soundtrack) would become a somewhat cathartic experience for me? What
could I possibly have in common with Tarzan and his family of apes?
I was born thirty-eight years ago in Korea, adopted at the age of
one, and raised in Iowa. Like Tarzan, those I grew up with were the
only family I knew and loved. I have always considered myself very well
adjusted to life as I knew it–to the point that I felt to give any
thought of where I came from to be fantasy, and I was much too
realistic.
Though my Mom always encouraged me to know more of my biological
heritage, I wanted nothing to do with it. Just as Tarzan, I wanted to
fit in, to not be considered different. The reflection in the mirror
may have been Asian, but American is all I have ever known.
It was when I was pregnant with my first daughter that I allowed
myself to consider my own beginnings, and to realize that they were
actually human–I didn’t just magically appear. What is the right
balance between adoptive and biological heritage? Especially if there
are two totally different cultures and you really have no connection to
one.
My first connection came on September 10-12, 1999. I had the
opportunity to attend The Gathering in Washington, DC, a conference
which explored the various aspects and effects of international
adoption on the first generation of Korean Adoptees. Not only are we
the first generation adopted from Korea, but we have paved the way for
international adoption as it has come to be known in the U.S. and
Europe.
I attended the conference with curiosity and trepidation. The
prospect of being surrounded by Asians was something I was not used to,
nor comfortable with. What I found was my innermost thoughts and
feelings being voiced by strangers who looked like me, without ever
having told them a thing. After three days they knew me in ways those
who have known me a lifetime will never understand.
This brings me to the Intercountry Adoption Convention
Implementation Act of 1999 which is under your consideration now.
Specifically provision S. 682, sections 401 (b)(1) and 401
(2)(a)(b)(c).
You cannot begin to comprehend what it is like to have no knowledge
of your background as it relates to international adoptees, unless you
yourself have experienced what we have. It has taken me thirty-seven
years to even acknowledge that being “well adjusted” doesn’t mean you
have to deny your origination. It will have devastating and long
lasting repercussions to take away adult adoptees rights as it pertains
to the privacy provisions you are now considering.
For the first time I have given consideration of possibly returning
to the country of my birth. I may find that reality is what I always
thought it to be, that there are no real answers for me, but even then
I can put to rest some of those nagging feelings that are deep within.
Like Tarzan I think I will be grateful to have better understanding of
where I came from and will also realize that my family and home are
where they’ve been for the last thirty-seven years.
We can learn the importance of identity and healing knowledge from
this simple children’s story, of how Tarzan transformed from the
anguished young boy to a confident man, as he came to find out where he
was from and how he came to be with those who raised him. Disney is
probably grateful to have another profitable venture, but the
connection it can provide to international adoption is amazing.
Please take the time to listen to the voices of we International
Adoptees and allow us to help you understand the full ramifications of
your vote on this issue.
Sincerely,
Kimberly A. Turner.
__________
Anita Walker Field,
Skokie, Illinois 60077.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN. S.682–TESTIMONY

When the Senate drafts legislation, I believe it is imperative that
our elected representatives listen carefully and thoughtfully to the
people about whom the legislation revolves. In the matter of S. 682, an
adoption bill, the views of adopted citizens must be taken into
account. I am a 62 year old adopted woman who finds it unacceptable
that only representatives from the adoption industry were invited to
give testimony to the Senate on S. 682.
Did you ever wonder what it is like to be adopted; to live your
life without any knowledge of your biological origins? What do you
think it is like to lose your original parents, your name, your
religion, and your culture with just one stroke of a judge’s pen? You
become a new person when you are adopted; a person created not by your
biological parents but by the state. The Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, in a case known as “In re Female Infant,” referred to
the adult adoptee’s plight as a form of “genealogical bewilderment.”
And this court was talking about adoptees born in the United States.
Imagine, if you can, how a child born in another country and into
another culture must feel when he or she is brought to the United
States through the process of adoption. How “genealogically
bewildered” must he or she feel? These children have a different
primary language, a different culture, and often, a different face.
Will their heritage be lost to them forever? It most certainly will, if
S. 682 is enacted into law.
Section 401 of this bill is of particular concern to me. It states
that upon reaching the age of maturity, internationally adopted
children will be forbidden by federal law to ever access information
pertaining to their original identities. Section 401 sanctions the
federal government to permanently seal the birth records of
international adoptees in the United States.
This provision flies in the face of the current trend of open
records in our country. In 1998, the voters in Oregon overwhelmingly
approved a ballot initiative to unconditionally release original birth
certificates to adult adoptees.
That same year, The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a 1996 Tennessee adoption records law giving adult adoptees
access to their original birth records. [Roe v Sundquist] In 1997, the
United States Supreme Court declined to review Roe v Sundquist, thus
letting stand the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that the
federal constitution does not prevent a state from making birth records
available to adults adopted as minors. And just this month, the Supreme
Court of Tennessee upheld this open records legislation.
To further muddy the waters, Section 401 states that international
adoptees would be exempt from using the Freedom of Information Act to
obtain any information about themselves which is being held by the
federal government. This exemption is normally made only for matters of
national security. This is blatant discrimination against one class of
people whose only “crime” was to be born in another country and
adopted by United States citizens.
The Joint Council on International Children’s Services also
expresses serious reservations about S. 682. They write, “. . . the
Hague Convention in Article 30 specifically mandates that information
on the child, `in particular information containing the identity of his
or her parents,’ is preserved and that appropriate access be allowed.”
It is evident that S. 682 is in conflict with that which it
proposes to implement–The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.
Adoption is a fluid, lifelong process. That which is in the best
interests of adopted “children” is not in the best interests of
adopted adults. Sealing birth records of adopted “children” promotes
the adoption process and serves to preserve the adoptive family unit.
But continuing to keep the records sealed after adoptees reach
adulthood is most decidedly not in the adult’s best interests! Because
this practice causes us adoptees to be “genealogically bewildered”
all of our lives.
I believe it is the civil right of every adult citizen of the
United States, regardless of the circumstances of his or her birth, to
request and receive, unconditionally and without falsification, his or
her original birth certificate.
Honorable Senators, I urge you all to vote against S. 682 unless
Section 401 is amended to remove the secrecy issues.
Thank you,
Anita Walker Field.
__________
American Adoption Congress,
New Castle, DE 19720.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC 20510.

RE: S. 682–TESTIMONY.
Dear Senator Helms: The American Adoption Congress (AAC)
appreciates this opportunity to present its response to the testimony
submitted by adoption organizations and individuals on Tuesday, October
5, 1999, concerning S. 682.
The AAC, founded in 1978, is a national organization comprised of
individuals, families and adoption professionals committed to adoption
reform. We represent all whose lives are touched by adoption. Through
education and advocacy, we promote honesty, openness and respect for
family connections in public policy.
AAC supports ratification of the Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoption if and only if implementing legislation establishes adequate
safeguards for children and parents.
Article 30 of the Convention states that identifying information
and the medical history of the child must be preserved and that the
child or his representative shall have access to such information.
Section 401 of S. 682 deprives adoptees of this access. We urge you to
revise this section so that it conforms to the language in Article 30.
Our organization strongly supports the requirement in Section
105(a)(3) that the number of disrupted intercountry adoptions be
reported. While we respect the Child Welfare League and the Joint
Council on International Children’s Services, we do not agree with
their request that this requirement be deleted. Dr. Ronald Federici and
Barbara Holtan of Tressler Lutheran Services presented testimony on
Tuesday about the rising number of disrupted adoptions in the past few
years. With over 15,000 children immigrating into the United States for
adoption in 1998 alone, it is critical that these disruptions be
tracked, including the country of origin and the responsible agencies
or persons providing adoption services in both countries.
The requirement that children emigrating from the United States
must be adopted by a married couple should be deleted (Sec.
303(b)(1)(B)). There is no similar requirement for children immigrating
into the United States. The requirement may cause other Convention
countries to retaliate and restrict adoption of their children to
married couples in the U.S.
We also heard testimony that many agencies and facilitators are not
available to the adoptive parents once the adoption is finalized and
the fees, often exorbitant, collected. AAC recommends that Adoption
Services, as defined in Section 3(3)(F), be revised so that an agency
responsible for arranging an adoption is also required to provide a
full range of post-adoption services, not simply post-placement
monitoring. It could reasonably be expected that the number of
disruptions would decrease as adoptive parents have an opportunity for
counseling and other post-placement services. As Barbara Holtan said so
well, “Adoption is not an act; it is a process. Far too many adoption
agencies and facilitators see it only as the act of getting the child.
Far more attention must be paid to the long view: the process of
raising that child to adulthood.”
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present our position
on this important legislation.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Hoard,
Legislative Director.
__________
Parent Finders of Canada,
West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 3J5 Canada.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC 20510.

RE: S. 682–TESTIMONY
Dear Senator, We are writing to support your efforts to have the
United States ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption and
to strongly oppose any provisions which would officially and
permanently seal the records of international adoptees in the United
States, specifically S. 682, Section 401.
Parent Finders of Canada was founded 25 years ago in Vancouver to
promote openness and understanding in adoption, to provide a volunteer
service to the adoption community in general, and specifically meet the
needs of adult adoptees and birth relatives, Today we have are over 29
chapters across Canada and 2 chapters in the United States, with a
total of over 56,000 people registered in our Canadian Adoption Reunion
Registry.
Canada’s 1998 International adoption statistics show that the
United States was one of the ten leading countries from which children
were adopted. There are also a significant number of Canadian children
who are adopted by United States citizens each year. The Hague
Convention on Intercountry Adoption seeks to establish minimum
“safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions takes place in the
best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental
rights as recognized in international law”. We therefore support your
efforts to ensure that the United States ratifies this treaty.
However, we strongly oppose S. 682, Section 401, which seeks to
officially and permanently seal the records of international adoptees
in the United States, as Section 401 contravenes international law
including; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child, as well as the spirit and intent of the
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.
You should be aware that the Tennessee Supreme Court in Doe v.
Sundquist, just last week, recognized an adoptee’s right to
retroactively access their personal records (http://
www.tsc.state.tn.us/BARISTA/Tsc/993/Doeopn.htm). In addition, the U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has also upheld an adoptee’s right to
access their personal records (http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/feb97/
97a0051p.06.html).
The United States Senate’s proposal to seal international adoptees’
records would therefore thwart the openness and disclosure provisions
of several States and some Provinces. For example, if a child was
adopted from the province of British Columbia, which permits adoptees
to access their records, or the State of Tennessee, which also permits
adoptees to access their records, the Senate’s proposed S. 682, Section
401 would negate access to records rights which already exist for these
international adoptees.
We therefore respectfully call upon the United States Senate to
ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption without any rider
provisions which would seal any records of international adoptees in
the United States.
Sincerely,
James Kelly,
Legislative Chair,
Parent Finders of Canada.
__________
Adopted Peoples Association,
Irish Adoption Contact Register,
Republic of Ireland.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC 20510.

RE: S. 682–TESTIMONY: U.S. Hague Convention will Permanently Seal
Records of International Adoptees; S. 682, Section 401, which contains
the sealed records and secrecy provisions.
All at the APA (Adopted Peoples Association (Ireland)) are deeply
saddened at this development in the U.S. Senate. We are genuinely
outraged at this regressive step which is completely out of line with
the international movement of openness in adoption. Would somebody
please inform these Senator’s that secrecy in adoption only causes
heartbreak and frustration to all concerned.
It may be of interest to note that over 2,000 Irish born children
where adopted by U.S. couples in the 50’s, 60’s & 70’s. As adults the
APA has assisted many of these people to successfully reunite with
their natural families. As a result we have acquired a specialised
knowledge of the affects of inter country adoptions.
Late last year one these reunions was front page news in the
influential Irish Voice newspaper and the story was syndicated around
the U.S.–why? Because it showed the world the raw emotions involved in
adoption search and reunion, i.e., that blood ties can never be broken?
The adopted person in this case searched for over twenty years
travelled over 3,000 miles 3 times, just to find his mother.
This is not something he wanted to do, this was something he had to
do! His mother was overjoyed. She recalled never seeking
confidentiality, it was imposed by the all knowing authorities. This
imposed confidentiality ensured the loss of over twenty years of a now
flourishing relationship–those years are lost, they can never be given
back.
Only a very poorly educated person would seek to deny a person a
right to know their very own mother?
It may also be of interest to note that the Heads of Bill entitled
the Post Adoption & Associated Issues Bill has been under preparation
by the Dept. of Health & Children and will be presented to the Republic
of Ireland’s Cabinet (The Government’s 15 Ministers) January next for
approval.
This Bill when enacted will give all adopted people over the age of
18 in the Republic of Ireland the statutory right to obtain their
original birth certificate and surrounding adoption placement
information. The Bill will also provide for the establishment of
statutory search and reunion services to assist adopted people and
natural family members to trace one and other.
The Government regard this legislation as a top priority. The
relevant Government Minister, Frank Fahey TD stated in speech given in
Dail Eireann (the Irish Parliament) earlier this year that his priority
is to enact legislation that will enable adopted people access their
birth record information which he believes is their birthright.
The Dept. of Health & Children are also preparing the Head of a
Bill to enable Ireland comply with the terms of the Hague Convention on
the Protection of Children with Respect to Inter Country Adoption which
is due to be presented for Cabinet approval in May/June of next year.
One of its main provisions will be that the child’s natural family
background information must be received by the Irish Central Adoption
Authority before the child will be issued with an entry visa by the
Irish Department of Foreign Affairs (except in clearly defined truly
exceptional circumstances). This background information will be made
available on request to the adopted person at the age of 18.
Put simply–No background information–No adoption.
This measure will also work the other way i.e. if an Irish child is
to be adopted in a foreign jurisdiction the child must have the same
rights as a child adopted in Ireland.
A proposed adoption of an Irish child to a jurisdiction with less
rights than an Irish adopted child will be vetoed.
Regrettably we will be making representations through all
diplomatic channels available to us concerning this nightmare measure.
We will start with Sen. Edward Kennedy, the American Ambassador to
Ireland, and the Irish Minister Foreign Affairs, David Andrews TD.
Kevin Cooney,
Research & Information Officer,
Adopted Peoples Association (Ireland).
__________
Re: S. 682–Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation Act of
1999, 106th Congress

Mr. Chairman & Committee Members: Thank you for providing us with this
opportunity to express our concerns regarding S. 682–Intercountry
Adoption Convention Implementation Act of 1999 (“S. 682” or the
“Bill”. Bastard Nation is an incorporated not-for-profit organization
dedicated to preserving and restoring the rights of adoptees.
I. Executive Summary and Recommendation
We believe that the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the “Hague
Convention” should be enabled by the United States in a manner such
that the rights of intercountry adult adoptees to know their identities
will be protected and affirmed.
We have the following areas of concern:
(i) Title iv, Section 401 of S. 682.
We are concerned that S. 682 Section 401 will impose by law a
form of secrecy on the adoption process which is, by its
nature, unfair and discriminatory toward Americans adopted from
foreign countries.
(ii) The hearing process for S. 682.
We are concerned that no apparent effort was made to invite
American citizens personally affected by international
adoption, including adoptees, adoptive parents and birthparents
and the voluntary organizations representing them, to submit
testimony to the Committee regarding S. 682, despite the fact
that the Bill may have a direct impact upon their lives and the
lives of all Americans touched by adoption.

We urge the Committee to amend Section 401 of S. 682 to protect
the right of adult intercountry adoptees to freely access any Hague
Convention-related information held on them by American government
agencies where such access would not explicitly contravene the Hague
Convention. Failing amendment of Section 401, we request the Committee
to reject S. 682 in its entirety. We also request that in the future
the Committee makes appropriate efforts to provide timely notification
of relevant hearings and pending legislation to American citizens
personally concerned with the international adoption process so that
they may participate more meaningfully in the legislative process.
II. Concerns with S. 682 (Title IV, Section 401)
Adult adoptees everywhere deserve the information held on them by
public agencies and courts concerning their identities, heritage and
development.
We are concerned that secrecy provisions far more stringent than
those required under Article 30 of the Hague Convention are included in
S. 682. We believe that American intercountry adoptees have an interest
in seeing their access to such information legally preserved instead of
prohibited, and we also believe that this interest takes precedence
over whatever foreign interests S. 682 seeks to protect by prohibiting
such access.
It is our view that the Federal government should not be
maintaining secret files on American citizens in the absence of a
national interest for doing so, nor should the Federal government
require state and local administrations to do likewise through Federal
legislation. However, Section 401 (b) seems to have the effect of
legally requiring the maintenance of such secret files, and of
permanently preventing adoptees from accessing them.
Our system of government requires that all citizens deserve be
accorded equal dignity and respect under the law. Specifically
restricting the legal ability of adult intercountry adoptees to access
their personal files and exempting them from the Freedom of Information
Act of 1966, as amended, violates the dignity of such adults, and is
discriminatory. Section 401(c) provides for such an exemption, which we
understand is normally made only where interests of national security
or public safety are involved. There are no interests of national
security or public safety involved in providing non-criminal and non-
suspect American citizens with access to their own records, even where
such records come into the possession of our government from foreign
sources through the Hague Convention adoption process.
In addition, Section 401 appears to go against the will of the
American people in respect of the treatment of the government-held
records of adoptees. State legislatures have enacted or are considering
the enactment of laws to allow domestically adopted adults access to
certain adoption records. Oregon and Tennessee have recently enacted
legislation permitting access to identifying information. On Friday,
September 27, 1999, the Tennessee State Supreme Court ruled that such
legislation is permitted under their state constitution, dismissing
attempts by plaintiffs to overturn the state law in question (Doe v.
Sundquist). This follows a ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
upholding the same law, as well as by the refusal of the U.S. Supreme
Court to grant cert. to those opposed to the law in their petition to
stop it from going into effect. On July 16, 1999, a lower court in
Oregon issued a similar ruling (Doe v. Kitzhaber) relating to that
state’s new law permitting adult adoptees to access their Original
Birth Certificates–a law which was approved by [57%] of Oregon voters
in a state initiative in November, 1998. Furthermore, recent public
opinion surveys conducted by organizations such as CNN have shown that
a vast majority of Americans support the ending of adoption secrecy
laws. S. 682 threatens to make these gains meaningless for intercountry
adoptees. It is unclear why the sponsors of this legislation, Senators
Jesse Helms and Mary Landrieu, appear to be going against the national
trend toward greater openness.
America’s states are not the only governments which give
recognition to the rights denied by S. 682. Many foreign countries also
provide adoptees with access to government-held records, including
countries who regularly allow children to be adopted in the United
States. Yet S. 682 seeks to perpetually seal the records of adoptees
who enter the U.S. from all countries, regardless of the adoption
practices prevalent in those countries–an extreme form of adoption
secrecy which is not required under the Hague Convention or any other
international instrument. If S. 682 is passed as written, adoptees
coming from certain countries would legally lose their right to
information about their identities and heritage only when they become
Americans under the provisions of S. 682. Such secrecy requirements may
also conceivably prevent such adoptees from benefiting under foreign
programs created to assist adoptees once they become adults. Foreign
governments have or are considering measures which would provide
international adoptees with certain benefits. However, the ability of
future generations of intercountry adoptees to take advantage of such
benefits may be put in jeopardy by S. 682’s secrecy provisions. A case
in point is the Republic of Korea, which, according to statistics
provided by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service was the
source of 1,829 intercountry adoptees entering the United States in
1998. South Korea provides considerable assistance to adoptees seeking
to obtain information about their identities, as well as programs which
provide tangible economic and social benefits to such adoptees, should
they choose to return to South Korea.
The right of adoptees to information to their identities and
heritage is widely recognized and mandated in a number of international
instruments. These instruments include the Hague Convention (Article
30), the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 7, 8 and
20 (3)), the U.N. Declaration on Legal and Social Principles Relating
to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to
Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally (Articles
9 and 24) and the widely accepted Uniform Guidelines for Foster Care
and Adoption prepared by the International Council on Social Welfare
(Sections 2.11 and 4.10). Section 401 of S. 682 appears to go against
both the intent and letter of these instruments, including the
instrument it purports to enable.
III. Concerns about the Legislative Process in Respect of S. 682
We are disappointed that no credible attempt was made to solicit
testimony from individuals and voluntary organizations representing any
of the parties personally involved in the adoption process. We have
heard reports to this effect from voluntary groups representing birth-
parents and adoptive parents who have expressed similar concerns.
Americans who have experienced international adoption first hand as
adoptees, adoptive parents or birthparents are in a position to provide
meaningful and substantive feedback to the Committee. We ask the
Committee to see these people and their organizations as the valuable
resources they are and to solicit testimony from them. We also believe
that the involvement of such people in the legislative process offers a
necessary complement to the views of adoption professionals and others,
including paid lobbyists, involved with the adoption process in
remunerated capacities, who may have certain vested interests with
respect to the outcomes of such process.
IV. Conclusion
We believe the purposes of the Hague Convention are to mandate
accountability and integrity in the international adoption process, and
to provide minimal standards for protecting the rights of adoptees,
including the right of adoptees to information with respect to their
identities and heritage. S. 682 as drafted appears to contradict these
purposes, and thus requires amendment or rejection by the Committee in
the manner set forth in this testimony.
We request that the honorable members of the Committee recognize
that international adoption is a lifelong process and not merely about
“moving” children and babies across international borders. The
American enabling legislation for the Hague Convention needs to reflect
such a lifelong process, as well as to better protect the interests of
those who become American citizens through application of its
provisions. The best means to achieve these ends are to ensure that the
legislation in question is consistent with the desires of the American
people, and, in particular, those voters who are personally concerned
with the adoption process. We stand prepared to assist you in this
process.
Yours sincerely,
Ron Morgan,
Executive Committee,
Bastard Nation.

Julie Dennis,
Legislative Committee,
Bastard Nation.

Albert S. Wei,
Educational Development Committee,
Bastard Nation.
__________
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN: S. 682–TESTIMONY
Dear Senator Helms: I previously sent correspondence by fax to both
you and the Honorable Mary Landrieu regarding the above captioned
legislation. To date, I’ve heard no response and want to take this
opportunity to submit formal testimony to the Committee reviewing S.
682 in an amicus capacity.
I am a 39-year old adoptee, born in Ireland, adopted and raised in
the United States. Moreover, I am also birth mother to an adult
daughter born and adopted in the US. We were happily reunited in 1997
and now enjoy a close, loving relationship that extends to her adoptive
parents, my own family, and that of her birth father.
Having reviewed the text of S. 682, I am gravely concerned that
this legislation serves to violate many terms of the Hague Convention
on Intercountry Adoption, rather than to support or implement its
articles. The Hague is quite clear in its intent to provide all
children adopted across national lines with the records of their birth,
including the original birth certificate. S. 682 actually seeks to seal
these records and exclude them from the FOIA information most
naturalised US citizens would be able to request and receive.
I was able to obtain my original Irish birth certificate using the
FOIA, along with other important documents, and am grateful that this
avenue was open to me as a US citizen. Unfortunately, this information
would have been sealed from me under a 1984 law passed by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where my adoption was finalised. It is a
sad fact that most US adult adoptees do not enjoy the same rights as
their non-adopted counterparts–that is, access to their original birth
certificate (OBC). Only Kansas and Alaska have always had open records,
and now Tennessee (under a very recent Tennessee Supreme Court ruling)
will reopen theirs. Additionally, Oregon passed Measure 58 this past
November to reopen access to the OBC, but it is currently under an
injunction until a legal decision is reached.
Senator, this very simple piece of documentation is the birthright
of every other American. Why should any adult be denied this right
simply because of the status of their birth? In the case of
international adoption, this document and other information, such as
medical history, are vital to the transition of children (who will,
incidentally, one day be voting adults) in our culture. Adoption is not
a one-time, one-step process. It isa lifetime, full-circle event that
involves the cooperation and full disclosure of all parties
involved*the birthparents (inasmuch as possible), the adoptive parents,
and of course, the child.
I urge you and the Committee to reconsider the proposed legislative
context of S. 682 and move instead toward ratifying and implementing
the full Hague Convention as written. Ireland is currently assessing
ratification and I am working diligently with government and peer
groups in that country to encourage that process. I have been active
here in the US as well for many years in adoption issues, particularly
relative to open records.
I would be most happy to provide the Committee any expertise I can
offer, background materials, or general assistance and testimony. This
issue is very important to me and one with which I closely identify.
Please reconsider the wording of this legislation and most
importantly–consider the voices of those whom it most affects. To
date, the Committee is represented largely by adoption industry
members, with little to no representation from individuals affected
most by the process: adoptees who will become, or are now, adults.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mari T. Steed,
Pennsylvania State Director, Bastard Nation.
__________
Joint Council on International
Children’s Services.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sen. Helms: The Joint Council on International Children’s
Services thanks you for your leadership on the U.S. ratification and
implementation of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
Joint Council, as the largest and oldest affiliation of licensed,
non-profit international adoption agencies in the world, has been
closely involved with the treaty since its historic inception in 1993.
Susan Freivalds, Joint Council’s Hague Convention Policy Coordinator,
was a delegate to the Hague Conference. Susan Cox, then president of
the Board of Directors of Joint Council, was also a delegate in 1993.
Since then, Joint Council has been promoting the Hague Convention
as an important means of protecting children, and of safeguarding the
rights and responsibilities of all those involved in adoption, We are
disappointed that we have not been invited to testify about S. 682 on
behalf of our 130+ member licensed, non-profit international adoption
agencies. In the more than 20 years of Joint Council’s existence, our
member agencies have developed an impressive amount of professional
experience, knowledge, humanitarian aid programs, and commitment to
children and families.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on
S. 682, and will do so.
We are aware that speculation has been raised about Joint Council’s
commitment to accountability by agencies. Sen. Helms, in the interest
of fairness and accuracy, we want to be sure you receive correct
information.
For example, Joint Council has taken a leadership role in promoting
standards of excellence and accountability for adoption professionals.
We take the accreditation process for agencies very seriously, not
simply because we recognize it as a vital part of the Hague Convention
process, but also because it provides rigorous and appropriate
opportunities for professional accountability.
In fact, as a result of thoughtful deliberation, in dialogue with
other adoption-related agencies and federal entities, Joint Council led
the development and promotion of Proposed Accreditation Standards for
adoption agencies. (A copy, as published in our February 1997 Bulletin,
is attached.)
These proposed standards. developed with the Hague Alliance, were
sent to the State Department nearly 3 years ago, as a measure of our
commitment to accountability and service. The Council on Accreditation
used these proposed standards in the development of their accreditation
process for intercountry adoption providers. Many of our 130+ Joint
Council agencies are currently going through the rigorous accreditation
process with COA, and we expect many more will do so.
Sen. Helms, we raise this with you as but one example of Joint
Council’s commitment to professionalism and service–well before the
implementing legislation was introduced. Additionally, you may not be
aware that our Education Committee has produced two extremely important
and widely disseminated documents related to preparation and post-
placement services.
Joint Council believes that preparation is a critical component for
the success of any adoption. The Adoptive Parent Preparation System,
published by our Education Committee in 1998, has been widely
distributed as a minimum standard for preparation in the homestudy
process. It includes thoughtful readings and an impressive resource
guide, encouraging both parents and agencies to look at the preparation
process thoroughly and thoughtfully.
This year, the Committee produced “Post-Placement Guidelines and
Tools for Adoption Professionals,” as an educational tool signifying
the importance we place on quality post-placement services.
Competence, financial soundness, and ethical behavior should be
considered basic standards for the accreditation process. In other
words, we are deeply committed to measures of excellence for
professionals providing adoption services.
That is, of course, one part of our motivation in promoting the
Hague Convention. We also hope, as the United States moves toward the
historic ratification of the treaty, that the adoption process becomes
more streamlined and effective. Ensuring that children in desperate
need can join loving U.S. families in an ethical, legal, and efficient
manner is crucial, and we appreciate your leadership in achieving this
goal.
Sen. Helms, thank you for introducing S. 682, and for calling for
hearings on the Hague Convention. It is our hope that the needs of the
children will come first in these discussions, and that extraneous
matters, anecdotal conjecture, or personal agendas will not impede the
legislation’s progress. We recognize your long-standing commitment to
states’ rights issues, and suggest that deference to state law, except
insofar as it is necessary to implement the Convention, will be
important.
We very much appreciate your powerful recognition of the need for
this treaty, to ensure that adoption is in the best interests of the
child, and to establish a system of cooperation among counties to
eliminate the abduction, sale, and trafficking of children. We look
forward to the United States taking a leadership role In achieving
these objectives, and thank you for your bard work on behalf of
children.
Sincerely,
Maureen Evans,
Executive Director.

Susan Freivalds,
Hague Convention Policy Coordinator.

______

proposed accreditation standards
The Hague Alliance’s proposed standards for recognition as an
agency qualified to provide intercountry adoption services and
accredited under the terms of the Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoption
A.  Organization Legal Sanction, and Regulatory Compliance
A.1  The agency is authorized by statute or sanctioned by the state
authorities through licensure as an adoption agency to deliver adoption
and/or Intercountry adoption service.
A.2  For adoptive placements not finalized in the child’s country
of origin, the agency that arranged the placements will accept legal
custody of the child, up to the finalization of the adoption, as
allowed by state law.
A.3  The agency is a non-profit corporation, complying with section
501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
B.  Governance
B.1  The agency has a governing body responsible for establishing
its policies, determining its programs, guiding its development, and
providing leadership.
B.2  The governing body is organized so that it can provide
governance and oversight and assure that the agency is funded, housed,
staffed and equipped in the manner required to carry out its program.
B.3  The governing body delegates responsibility for the
administration and management of the agency to a chief executive
officer or executive director whom it holds account able for the
agency’s performance through a formal evaluation process which occurs
no less frequently than every two years.
B.4  Permanent records are kept of the deliberations of the
governing body.
B.5  The governing body approves agency policy and assures that the
agency is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations
governing its program of services.
B.6  The governing body members receive no honoraria or other
compensation for carrying out their duties, other than reasonable
reimbursement for expenses associated with service to the agency.
B.7  The governing body assures that neither the board, volunteers,
personnel or consultants are favored in applying for or receiving
adoption services or other services of the agency.
B.8  Written agency policy prohibits actual or promised payment or
other consideration to any party directly or indirectly involved in the
administration of an intercountry adoption service, whether acting as
an employee or independent contractor, except for the performance of
routine professional duties necessary to successfully complete the
adoption process.
B.9  No payment or other consideration is provided, promised, or
accepted for referral of applicants to or from the agency.
B.10  There are no improper financial interests in the assets,
leases, professional services or business transactions of the agency on
the part of directors, employees, volunteers, contractors, or
consultants.
B.11  Agency salaries and benefits are established in consideration
of national surveys and those of similar agencies and organizations in
its area and in the field of adoption, including intercountry practice,
so as not to unreasonably exceed those norms.
C.  Finances and Fees
C.1  The agency obtains sufficient financial resources to operate
its programs at an adequate and continuing level consistent with the
expectations contained in the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption
and applicable state laws or regulations regarding intercountry
adoption.
C.2  The agency complies with all applicable laws or regulations
governing fee-setting.
C.3  The agency establishes a written schedule of fees and
estimated or actual expenses and informs applicants at the point
service is initiated of the conditions under which fees are charged,
changed, refunded, waived, or reduced and the manner and timing of
payment.
C.4  At the time of or prior to service delivery, clients are
informed in writing of what they will be charged for services and of
anticipated fees and costs in the child’s country of origin.
C.5  The agency has a policy that it neither solicits nor accepts
contributions from adoptive applicants or from persons acting on the
applicant’s behalf during the period of application or before an
adoption has been finalized, unless such contributions are associated
with requests made to offer past and present clients by the agency and
to the public, provided that donation history and placement decisions
are kept separate, insofar as possible.
C.6  An annual budget, based upon a realistic appraisal of funding
anticipated and the costs of operation, is approved by the governing
body as the financial plan for allocating and managing the agency’s
receipts and disbursements during the program year.
C.7  The agency follows generally accepted principles of sound
financial management, has a bookkeeping and accounting system (cash or
accrual method) that tracks all movements of its funds, demonstrates
its fiscal accountability through an independent annual audit as well
as regular reporting of its finances to the governing body, and meets
the financial reporting requirements of state regulations.
C.8  The agency can demonstrate compliance with the fund raising
requirements of the states in which it solicits donations.
D.  Administration and Management
D.1  The executive director is qualified by education and/or
adoption services experience and the management skills sufficient to
assure effective use of the agency resources, delivery of agency
services, and coordination of the agency’s services with those of other
agencies in the community.
D.2  The executive director:
<bullet> delegates responsibilities only to personnel who are
qualified by professional education arid/or experience to
assume them;
<bullet> has a written plan for delegation of authority in
his or her absence.
D.3  The agency has a board.approved manual of policies and
procedures and a manual of personnel policies which serve as guides to
the governing body, personnel and others, as appropriate.
D.4  There is a written job description for each agency position,
including that of executive director, and persons retained are
qualified in accord with the job descriptions.
D.5  The agency’s policies specify clearly the conditions under
which personnel are employed and protections against favoritism or
undue influence in employment practices.
D.6  The agency actively recruits, employs, and promotes qualified
personnel broadly representative of the community it serves, and
administers its personnel practices without discrimination.
D.7  The agency maintains a secure and confidential system of
personnel records which include all necessary documentation of the
hiring, evaluation, and other employment-related processes at the
agency.
E.  Qualifications and Training of Supervisory and Service Personnel
E.1  The agency retains social service supervisory personnel with
prior professional experience in providing family and children’s
services and who have:
<bullet> a master’s degree from an accredited program of
social work education; or
<bullet> a master’s degree from an accredited program in
another human service field; or
<bullet> a state social work license at the master’s degree
level.
E.2  Direct social service personnel have at least a bachelor’s
degree from an accredited program of social work education or in
another human service field and prior experience in family and
children’s services.
E.3  Supervisory and direct social service personnel possess
knowledge of intercountry adoption service, including knowledge of
issues of:
<bullet> separation and loss from family of origin;
<bullet> bonding to an adoptive family;
<bullet> development and life cycle phases;
<bullet> post-traumatic stress disorder;
<bullet> identity formation;
<bullet> cultural diversity and cross-cultural issues;
<bullet> INS rules and regulations.
E.4  Professional personnel providing intercountry adoption service
hold the license appropriate in their state to their professional
discipline, if applicable, and subscribe to the code of ethics of the
professional organization for their discipline.
E.5  All new personnel providing intercountry adoption service are
provided with orientation and in-service training in inter-country
adoption service, which include:
<bullet> the agency’s goals, services, policies and
procedures;
<bullet> a the cultural diversity of the service population;
<bullet> respect for client confidentiality;
<bullet> the lines of accountability and authority within the
agency; and
<bullet> the agency’s ethical and professional expectations.
E.6  Direct social service personnel receive at least 10 hours of
training relevant to the field annually.
E.7  Either the executive director, supervisor, or the direct
social service provider has direct experience in the professional
delivery of adoption services.
F.  Quality of Services
F.1  The agency engages in systematic planning and evaluation of
its services and holds itself accountable for the quality of the
services it provides.
F.2  The agency plans for manages, maintains necessary information
about, and evaluates its programs effectively.
F.3  The agency provides to its applicants and clients the
opportunity and means to lodge complaints or appeals when decisions
concerning them or services provided them are considered
unsatisfactory.
G.  Generic Service Delivery Standards
G.1  The agency maintains intake procedures which assure that
appropriate and timely attention is paid to those requesting service.
G.2  The agency informs applicants for service about its
eligibility criteria, the services which are available, and the mutual
rights and responsibilities of both clients and agency.
G.3  The agency has written procedures for accepting clients for
initial screening and for placement on a waiting list.
G.4  The agency has the capacity to provide, either directly or in
coordination with other providers acting on behalf of or under the
responsibility of the agency:
<bullet> intake screening;
<bullet> comprehensive assessment;
<bullet> development of a service plan;
<bullet> implementation of the service plan;
<bullet> coordination of services with other necessary
providers; and development of a plan for ongoing services as
needed.
G.5 Client records:
<bullet> are maintained in a confidential and secure manner;
<bullet> contain the essential information deemed necessary
to provide the service; and
<bullet> comply with legal regulations, including regulations
with regard to record retention.
G.6  The agency has procedures addressing:
<bullet> protection of the privacy of current and former
clients;
<bullet> legitimate future requests by former clients for
information, particularly for that which may not be available
elsewhere; and
<bullet> disposition and future preservation of client
records in the event of dissolution of the agency.
H.  Adoption Service Standards
H.1  The agency identifies the child as the primary client of the
service and seeks to provide mutually beneficial relationships in an
adoptive family to children whose birth parents are unwilling or unable
to provide care for them and who are legally free for adoption.
H.2  Services for adoptive applicants are provided either directly
or in coordination with other providers acting under the responsibility
of the agency or in coordination with other accredited bodies and
include:
<bullet> orientation to intercountry adoption, its meaning,
the adoption process, agency procedures, and the
characteristics of children needing adoption;
<bullet> disclosure of the general criteria by which the
agency determines eligibility for adoptive parenthood;
<bullet> determination of the ability of the adoptive
applicants to meet the needs of an internationally adopted
child and preparation of a home study report;
<bullet> preparation for parenting and placement of an
internationally adopted child;
<bullet> obtaining assurances that at placement the child is
legally free for international adoption;
<bullet> following standard procedures to obtain assurance
that the child is or will be authorized to enter and reside
permanently in the United States;
<bullet> full disclosure of all information available to the
agency regarding the child’s medical and social history as part
of the referral information; and assurance that the adoption of
the child is finalized.
H.3  The agency collects and exchanges information about the
situation of the child and the prospective adoptive parents, so far as
is necessary to complete the adoption, and ensures that information
held by the agency concerning the child’s origin, in particular the
identity of his or her birth parents, as well as the medical history is
preserved.
H.4  The agency provides prospective parents appropriate time and
support to consider a child’s referral.
H.5  The agency provides counseling to prospective adoptive parents
that includes assistance in understanding the child’s cultural, ethnic,
or linguistic background and the impact of leaving familiarities and
surroundings, as appropriate to the age of the child.
H.6  Post-placement services include:
<bullet> providing post-placement reports on the progress of
a child, when requested by the country of origin and when not
in conflict with the law or public policy of the United States
or of the state of official residence of the adoptive parents
or parent;
<bullet> counseling or referral to counseling for adoptive
parents and the adoptee, when an adoptive placement is in
crisis;
<bullet> re-placement of the child in the event of disruption
of the adoptive placement before finalization of the adoption;
and
<bullet> assurance that the child or his or her
representative has access, under appropriate guidance, to
information regarding the child’s origins that is held by the
agency, insofar as permitted by laws governing the agency’s
operations, the laws of the child’s country of origin, and the
agency’s own policy in this regard.
H.7  Post-adoption services are available, as appropriate under the
laws of the child’s country of origin and the United States, upon
request by members of the adoption triad, and include:
<bullet> delivery of services by persons with prior
experience in post-adoption service and who are knowledgeable
about the legal, social, cultural, an, emotional issues
pertinent to adoption;
<bullet> provision of information sought by adoptees about
their origins, as permitted by the laws of the child’s country
of origin, the laws governing the agency’s operations, and the
agency’s own policy in this regard;
<bullet> post-adoption reports on the progress of the child
when requested by the child’s country of origin and when not in
conflict with law or public policy of the United States or of
the state of official residence of the adoptive parents or
parent; and
<bullet> post-adoption counseling on family adjustment and
adoption issues or referral when requested by the family.
I.  Other Service Standards
I.1  The agency cooperates with the central authority in all
matters related to compliance with the terms of the Hague convention on
intercountry adoption.
I.2  The agency provides service to applicants seeking to adopt a
child from another country on the same basis and with no greater delay
than to those applicants seeking to complete a domestic adoption, if
the agency places children both domestically and internationally.
I.3  Adoption studies done by or under the supervision of the
agency meet agency requirements and applicable state standards and
comply with the minimum standards established for international
adoption studies by the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
I.4  The agency informs families about how to obtain citizenship
for their adopted child.
I.5  The agency does not allow preferential placement decisions
regarding children the agency might refer for adoption to agency
directors, employees, contractors, or consultants who are adoptive
applicants.
__________
To: Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

RE: S. 682

We hired Kirk Rector an American Attorney living in Moscow, Russia.
He was employed by Global Adoption in Global Adoption Agency out of
Sheridan, WY. They are still in business after taking money from very
many families. Our story is below.

1. Originally signed up with Kirk Rector who basically
couldn’t tell the truth! His stories changed daily about our
children and he didn’t check things out regarding databank,
relinquishment etc. He wasted 6 months of our time and came up
with nothing but 4 failed referrals!
2. Two days before we went to Russia, Ivan Volsky wrote
demanding more money and changing his fee due to the fact that
he had not been paid the agency fee by another couple who had
adopted from Barnual (who had been totally disgusted with
Global’s performance.)
3. Got to Moscow * * * no-one to meet us. Ivan Volsky came
late.
4. As soon as he met us, he asked for more money than had
been quoted in the contract. From here on in, the “money
talk” started!
5. Nick Volsky (Ivan’s brother and helper) argued with us
that we had only requested one child! From August 96, we
requested two children under 4, twins or siblings.
6. Quoted $125 per day for expenses. When we got there they
tried to hit us for $250 as Ivan said, “this money which had
been quoted was totally insufficient”. Nice of him to tell us
AFTER we arrived!
7. We were told (at the last minute) to give $1,000 donation
to the orphanage. We offered the money, but were TOLD to buy a
computer!
8. We bought a computer ($1,000), gave $600 of new and used
clothing to the children (after we’d checked with Ivan that
used clothing was acceptable), toys and numerous other gifts.
We were told the day AFTER the court hearing when the Judge,
the Head of Adoptions and the Orphanage Director had said YES
to the adoption that this was insufficient and we’d have to pay
another $1,000 or else “Global wouldn’t be offered any other
children for the parents who were waiting and we do still have
to get your papers translated and your passports ready!” We
objected to this blackmail! We were told that the orphanage
director had been insulted that we had given her 2nd hand
clothing and that “ALL the staff (all 120 of them) in the
orphanage, were insulted and furious with us! We had called
Russia several times to check things before we took our gifts
over. We specifically asked if nearly new clothing was
acceptable and we were told yes. The used clothing we gave, by
the way, was in excellent condition! We refused to pay the
$1,000 as by this time, we didn’t trust either Ivan or Nick
Volsky and we ended up only paying $250. We don’t believe that
it went to the Orphanage Director! Ivan then changed his story
to say that we should be paying $2,000 per child. Again, none
of this was even mentioned before we left for Russia.
9. When we arrived at the host family’s home at 7 a.m. one
morning, they never knew we were coming! When we arrived at
their home one evening at 9:30 p.m. with two three year olds,
they never knew that either. When we paid extra for the
children’s food (another $20 per day) they didn’t know what to
give them or when to give it! We relied on Nick to translate to
them as they spoke no English and our Russian was limited to
Teddy Bears and Dolls talk! Some mornings we waited two hours
for the kid’s breakfast and when it was ready, it wasn’t what
we had asked for. We only asked for the same as in the
orphanage, porridge and bread. Eggs, cabbage, potatoes, carrot
coleslaw and curds came! Oh I forgot the pure cow’s milk which
gave the kids terrific diarreha. There was constant arguing in
the Host family’s house due to the confusion and due to the
fact that the woman was so old and kept trying to give us other
things to eat which the kids hated, and really she shouldn’t
have been undertaking such work.
10. Every day between 15 and 20 times, we’d hear about the
subject of money from Nick and Ivan. How little they had, how
Joyce Volsky never gave them enough, how they couldn’t possibly
do the adoption for us on this pittance of money unless we gave
them more etc. etc. etc. We got so sick of it that on the day
they blackmailed us into giving them more for the orphanage, we
told them to shut up about money! EVERY DAY IT WAS THE SAME
STORY!! It really wasn’t what we needed and we knew it wasn’t
true!
11. Ivan and Nick argued constantly and we mean constantly!
Mostly about money. Surprise, surprise and how they should ask
us for more! When we handed over the daily expenses, Nick would
turn on Ivan and give out yet another lecture in Russian. When
we asked Ivan what it was about, he told us that again, Nick
bad asked him to get more money from us and tell us that what
we were paying was not enough! EVERY DAY WAS THE SAME STORY!
Could you have put up with this?? Going to Vyksa by car, they
argued most of the way too! It was a great trip!!!! I don’t
think!
12. Paid for translator, Driver and mid day meal every day
and some days we were left without them as Nick or Ivan had
other things to do, like going back to the orphanage to pick up
papers they forgot to get after the court hearing. So sometimes
we had no driver, translator or lunch! Good job we took cuppa
soups with us! Of course, no refund was offered here!

There were many problems with Global and I think now they are too
many to mention. All we can say is that we would NOT recommend them to
anyone. CERTAINLY NOT! They are unprofessional and certainly do not
have their act together. The constant harassment over money issues and
stress brought on by it was just too much. I couldn’t bear to talk to
Nick Volsky for two days due to how angry I was after we were hit for
another $1,000! It was a very difficult situation as we relied heavily
on them due to our situation in Russia not knowing how to speak proper
Russian or being able to get around. (This, by the way, is the first
country we’ve been in where we’ve found ourselves in this situation and
we’ve traveled a great deal!)
We do not have a problem with the Russian system or the people or
the “bribery/gifts” that we had to take. What we do have a problem
with is when the people we reply so heavily on in a strange country try
to sting us for every penny they can and they know we are at their
mercy!
It has left us with a bad impression of Ivan and Nick Volsky. What
a shame our adoption was messed up firstly by Kirk Rector and then by
these cowboys!
We are happy though that we brought Artiom and Yelena home,
although we are so sure that the process would have been much smoother
with another agency.
The silly thing is that there is a saying “you only get what you
pay for”. Under the contract we signed with Kirk Rector, we only paid
$12,000 for the two unrelated children. We should really relate the
services rendered to the money paid!
The only advice we have to people whom is considering using Global
Adoption Services is DON’T! Unless you want your entire trip to be
blackmail and talk of hardship and moaning from the coordinators and
you want to empty the entire contents of your bank account into their
pockets. . . . please re-think! We only stayed with them as Kirk Rector
had wasted so much of our time that our seals expired within the month
and we had already chosen a boy from the video another client had. It
was just pure luck that a girl came along too.
What a saga, Fm sure as the happy times start with the children,
the bad memories of Global will fade!
Here’s hoping!
Nigel, Joyce, Yelena and Artiom Ryder,
The Ryder Family on 7th May 1997.
__________
Randie Ostroff Sass,
Akron, OH.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Dear Chairman Jesse Helms, I understand that the senate committee
on foreign relations will be meeting next to discuss S. 682.
Please let me add my voice to be heard. We started our “journey”
in January 1996. We had not chosen an agency to work with, but I knew
that the first step would be our home study. Our social worker tried to
help us find agencies that dealt with overseas adoption. We did check
into those, but it was at a meeting that I was given the email address
for a list of people in various stages of Russian adoption. It was
through this wonderful group of people that we learned more than anyone
had ever told us. One of the parents maintains a list of agencies and
people willing to talk about them. We originally were going to go with
an Ohio agency, but later changed because of cost and they were not
giving us the guidance they claimed they would. Through the list we
went with Global Adoption Agency out of Sheridan, WY. They were working
with an American lawyer in Russia, and if you were doing all your own
paperwork and were ready, they would save you money, etc. That was
January 1997. We followed their procedures and were told that when
Joyce Sterkel-Volsky (owner of Global Adoption) went to Russian in
February, she would bring back our referral. I went out and bought
$300.00 of new clothing as our gift to the orphanage in my excitement.
February and March came and went. We were told that Joyce was delayed
coming home. Then we received a letter stating that Global had severed
their relationship with this American Lawyer. We were welcome to stay
with Global. Believing that we were OK, we chose to remain. When Joyce
went back in April, she brought nothing. She went again in May and we
were assured that she would return in 2 weeks and we would have our
referral. Joyce stayed until June and returned something like 2 days
before our homestudy was to expire. There was no referral and we had to
scramble to keep our paperwork current. Then we received a letter
stating we had not paid that part of our fees to receive a referral [we
hadn't] and would not get a referral until paid. I changed agencies one
week later. Traveled one month later to Russia and brought our Ben
home. We did write to the WY government and never heard from them. Even
checking out references, etc., we still lost money. Plus each agency
had different state requirements that set us back each switch [more
costs, more paperwork]. Your help would be appreciated in developing
consumer protection for adoption.
Sincerely,
Randie Ostroff Sass.
__________
Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Chairman: Jesse Helms.

RE: International Adoption and Agencies

We support S. 682 and would like to submit a brief account of our
experience for your consideration. My husband and I adopted our son
from San Luis, Mexico through the agency Christian World Adoption. We
entered the country on November 8, 1998 and I arrived home with our son
on January 20, 1999. Repeatedly during our stay in Mexico, our agency’s
business professionalism and coordination disappointed us. As this was
our first adoption, we had no idea what to expect and had to rely
entirely on CWA to communicate and facilitate the process. Upon
returning home we experienced only further frustration when there was
no recourse for the failings of the agency. We submitted numerous
letters attempting to meet and discuss our experiences with the
director of the agency, Tommy Lee Harding, only to receive no answer.
We have attached a copy of one our letters detailing some of the
problems we encountered. We also contacted Virginia Rabenel about the
agencies accreditation, and spoke with countless others only to learn
that there is no system in place to address the concerns of adoptive
parents with any efficiency or expediency. It is imperative that those
involved with adoption be accountable. We are only one family, one
adoption case among thousands, but many have had experiences as bad or
worse than ours. With S. 682 you can make a difference and improve the
system for those that follow.
Sincerely,
Kathleen and Roger Anderson.
______

letter sent to robert harding by kathleen and roger anderson
Robert Harding
Wando, South Carolina 29492
Dear Robert Harding, I am writing regarding the adoption
process of our son Jacob. As discussed m my phone conversation
with Bob in early March, I will attempt to explain and document
the problems we experienced while suggesting possible
alternatives or solutions. To date an opportunity to share our
experiences has not been available; this may contribute to some
confusion about what transpired. I anticipate that we will need
to have further dialogue to assure fill comprehension of our
experience.
We contacted our travel agent, Tuesday November 2nd, after we
received the phone call from Jo-Ann with our travel date of
Sunday November 8th. We made arrangements for our itinerary to
be faxed for approval. Prior to confirming these arrangements
Jo-Ann and I discussed flying into Mexico City vs. Monterrey on
our way to San Luis. She said she would check with Maria Hanley
but believed either entry point was fine. We never heard
otherwise. Later, approximately 5 days after our arrival, we
found out we should have entered via Mexico City and filed the
petition to adopt before coming to San Luis and taking physical
custody of Jacob. Six weeks into our stay in San Luis we
learned we must fly to Monterrey before Ciudad Juarez to apply
for our visa.
The confusion about the steps in the process and where these
steps needed to be completed were very unsettling for a couple
who wre experiencing adoption for the first time. As adoptive
parents you put your trust in the agence to guide you safely
and efficiently through the complicated maze. Mistakes like
those mentioned above are very damaging to that trust and
expensive, as additional costs are incurred for flights and
itinerary changes.
The problems that occurred with our itinerary are easily
preventable. Every case should have a proposed chain of events
including the steps involved, tentative dates for completion,
and the cities in which each of these will be accomplished.
These steps should be verified by phone with both Mexican and
American officials to assure that the most up to date and
accurate information is being given to adoptive parents. That
would help assure that no adoptive parent is paying for
assumptions, but rather for experienced individuals with a high
level of experience, knowledge, and professionalism.
Another problem that occurred repeatedly was with
communication. Even the most basic courtesy of returning a
telephone call, or calling back as promised did not happen. On
many occasions we were told we should wait for a call that
never came or comes hours or even days later. This did not only
occur with the affiliates in Mexico but also those that worked
out of the South Carolina office. Again this was another aspect
the continued to deteriorate the trust we had in Christian
World Adoption and the agency’s ability to successfully
navigate us through this complex process. There is no way to
assure ourselves that the employees of the agency are courteous
and respectful however it is obvious that training is needed in
this area from an outside source. There are many wonderful
workshops, inservices, and continuing education courses
available to assist the employees in extending their knowledge
of customer service. Our experiences not only recommend this
but also necessitate this training immediately.
Throughout our stay in Mexico we were continually told things
were moving and we would be leaving shortly. Now, having
experienced the entire process it is clear that many of the
steps took several days to execute. However we were told to
reserve seats almost daily. Flight reservations were changed
twenty two times from early December until our departure on
January 19th. The emotional cost of believing, anticipating,
and preparing to travel for both my Mother, Roger and I is
inconceivable for anyone not experiencing it first hand. As a
new family being separated for such a long time is by itself
difficult but always a possibility when completing a foreign
adoption. However, the extensive miscommunication concerning
the progress and the adoption process exacted an unnecessary
emotional cost.
It is our families’ belief that throughout the process
situations arose that for varied reasons were very unfamiliar
to CWA’s personnel. We feel it would have been beneficial to
all involved if that had been admitted rather than to
communicate assumptions. Deadlines should not be given or dates
set when it is impossible to ascertain any certainty. Most of
all it should be ok to say we don’t know anything and we are
still waiting. Frustration occurs when something is promised
and then repeatedly taken away.
Daily communication is not always a possibility. We feel that
it is essential for the affiliates in Mexico and the employees
in South Carolina to communicate efficiently and daily.
Whenever possible the adoptive parents should be involved in
this communication and be receiving updates. Our hotels all had
fax machines and it would have been both efficient and
economical to utilize these to communicate the process. I am
aware that emails and phone calls happened daily between Mexico
and South Carolina but days would pass without knowing what if
anything had transpired. Faxing would give everyone a hard copy
to read from and keep everyone on the same page.
The misrepresentation to the judge on our behalf must be
mentioned. After successfully completing all of the adoption
requirements in the homestudy and feeling confident of our
ability to provide a loving and secure home for a child we were
denied the opportunity to share ourselves with the Judge. A
preposterous story was told that was blatantly unsubstantiated
by our dossier. We were completely unprepared for this and
nowhere was this mentioned in the adoption planner. When we
questioned the ethics with CWA we were told two different
stories. Maria Hanley claimed no knowledge of the fabrications
that had transpired while Mr. Harding assured us that this
happens all the time. Again as adoptive parents living in a
foreign country whom do you believe?
Finally as Jacob’s adoption continued to spiral out of
control and became more confusing, extended, and expensive we
received less contact and support from CWA. Repeatedly attempts
to pacify us were made utilizing Jacob as the source for
pacification. Apologies were not given and responsibility was
not taken for the extensive miscalculations, miscommunication,
and maltreatment.
We feel that our experience necessitates a sincere apology as
an acknowledgement of the failure to provide the quality of
service promised. Also we would like to see steps taken to
improve the Mexican program so that this does not happen to
other adoptive parents. Finally we are requesting a financial
reimbursement for the extensive additional costs incurred. We
are looking forward to dialoguing about our experience and hope
this brief summary helps you to better understand some of what
transpired.
Regards,
Kathleen and Roger Anderson.
__________
Steven F. Whiteside,
Chesterfield, Virginia 23838.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

RE: International Adoption Agencies

Our daughter and her husband, Kathleen and Roger Anderson, have
submitted a detailed summary of their multiple and continuous problems
with Christian World Adoption from the time they arrived on-site in
Mexico until arriving home some two and a half months later.
Meantime, back in Virginia and Maryland, though not enduring the
daily emotional strain, I also had first hand experience with Christian
World Adoption and would like to recount one episode that exemplifies
their professional ineptness.
It was Wednesday, November 25, 1998, the day before Thanksgiving.
There was an urgent need to contact Christian World Adoption because
due to their lack of communication with our daughter and her husband,
it was unclear whether the adoptive father needed to stay in Mexico for
a procedural question, or return home to Maryland and to work. By that
Wednesday there was no word forthcoming from Christian World Adoption,
and his flight plans called for him to fly back the next day,
Thanksgiving. I spoke with our daughter Tuesday evening, learned of the
situation, and immediately called Christian World Adoption in Wando, SC
, on Wednesday morning. To my shock and dismay, no one answered. They
had elected to close the office a day early for the Thanksgiving
holiday. I then called Tommy Lee Harding’s home and received a voice
mail message. Now I was becoming desperate. I then redialed the office
and listened to the voice mail menu of staff. By calling three times
and replaying the list I generated five or six names. I dialed
directory assistance in South Carolina trying to match people from my
list with names and addresses in the immediate area, all to no avail. I
never spoke to anyone.
Here you have a situation, in which clients are on site in a
foreign country, with questions, concerns, maybe problems, that require
professional help, and you have no way to communicate with anyone at
headquarters. They just decided to close and take an extra day off!
I wanted to include this cameo as just one more bit of evidence to
consider when listening to the parade of expert witnesses you will hear
from in the adoption agency industry.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven F. Whiteside.
__________
To: Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Chairman, Jesse Helms,
Date: October 3, 1999.

RE: International Adoption

We support S. 682 and would like to submit our story to you for
consideration when you are considering S. 682.
My name is Lydia Pfeffer and I am an attorney who has attempted
three adoptions and successfully completed two adoptions from Russia.
The purpose of this letter is to discuss the need for a consistent and
effective way to regulate the practice of international adoption. A
common misconception amongst prospective families is that if an agency
is licensed there is some protection against fraud, deceit, and other
gross misconduct. Nothing is further from the truth we have found. When
we confronted the licensing division in California with evidence of
fraud from several families their response was it was a civil matter
and they were of no help. It is financially and logistically
prohibitive for an out of state family to locate an appropriate
attorney to handle a “wrongful adoption” case from out of state. The
result over and over is the adoption agency wins and the consumer
loses.
We hired an agency in California to adopt a 12 year old Russian
girl. We went to Russia to meet her and the child agreed to the
adoption. Consent is required by a Russian child 10 years and older.
When we returned 2 months later to go to court the child said she had a
boyfriend at the orphanage and she didn’t want to be adopted. When we
returned to the states and asked for our money back (because the
adoption failed due to no fault of our own) the agency director said,
“we never promised you a child”, and kept approximately $5000.
The stories are endless of families being lied to regarding known
medical conditions of the children, undisclosed fees that surface alter
the contract is signed, and other deceitful acts. We ask that adoption
agencies be supervised and held accountable for their unethical and
illegal practices by their licensing division, state attorney general,
or other regulatory office.
Respectfully submitted,
Lydia Pfeffer, JD.
__________
Chairman Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Date: September 30, 1999.

RE: International Adoption

We support S. 682 and would like to submit our story to you for
consideration when you are considering S. 682. It is imperative that
adoption agencies, lawyers and other child placing agencies be held
responsible for their actions. There should be recourse for families if
an agency is found to be unethical, irresponsible and or fraudulent.
Our Story:

We adopted a 12 year old girl through Nightlight
International Adoptions, Inc. of CA, in October 97. We had
heard good reports and were confident that all would go well
since Nightlight seemed to have such a good track record and
informative psychological reports.
We have 3 other children adopted from other countries and are
experienced parents. Due to where we lived at the time (outside
US in a remote locale), we were clear about what we could and
could NOT deal with post placement. No services, limited school
resources, etc.
Despite very specific questions prior to picking up Inga,
some crucial facts were NOT disclosed to us. We were shocked to
learn that she had been placed with 2 Russian families and
brought back to the home. In addition, she could not read or
write Russian (at the age of 12!). She was a smoker! AND, she
was a habitual runner. She had a history of being picked up by
the police and brought back to the home. Had we known any one
of these facts prior to traveling, we would not have proceeded.
Inga was not appropriately prepared for us to pick her up,
either. The workers feel that adoption is in the “best
interest” of the child and apparently avoided the necessary
emotional preparation for fear of tantrums or resistance from
Inga.
To make a very long story short, our family was devastated
and we struggled to make things work for almost a year. We
traveled back to the states in the summer of ‘98 and placed
Inga with another family willing to work with her. She went
through 6 families and 2 hospitalizations. All of these
families were older, more experienced, and very successful at
parenting “`difficult” and “hard to place” older children.
None of them could parent her. We researched all available
resources in the US. We accessed family therapy, special
education, post adoptive support groups, and a variety of
specialists. We reached the lifetime limit on our health
insurance coverage. We contacted the Russian judge in an
attempt to dissolve the adoption. We pled with Nightlight to
take some responsibility.
We are currently trying to release our parental rights and
make Inga a ward of the state so she can get the treatment she
needs which we cannot provide. We are truly emotionally,
physically and financially depleted. This has been a tragic
story for us, many other people, and most sadly, Inga.
Furthermore, Nightlight has been reluctant to admit ANY
responsibility whatsoever for their neglect in accessing
pertinent, easily available information. Nightlight has even
stated that they can’t be responsible for families who are
“not satisfied” with the children they adopt. To be sure they
have made other successful placements, but in our case they
were neglectful in obtaining very essential facts, and now, 2
years later, Inga is in a residential psychiatric treatment
center with a diagnosis of “major depressive disorder,
psychosis, and post traumatic stress syndrome.” Their
recommendation is 9 more months of residential treatment and
then a group home.
Clearly, we would have avoided much of this heartache and
tragedy if consumer protection laws pertaining to international
adoption had been in place. I would be happy to speak with you
in more detail if you would like.
Sincerely,
Cilia J. Whatcott.
__________
Mary Mooney, Founder,
Adoption Advocates of America,
Consumer Protection Network.
RE: S. 682

Senator Helms we would like to take this opportunity to submit
testimony for the senate hearing on bill S. 682.
Our organization started as a support group for families that had
experienced failed or difficult adoptions. We found that most of our
experiences were due to unethical and unprofessional adoption agencies,
lawyers and or facilitators. We all felt that our cases should have
been taken on by the Attorney General of our state. We all felt our
justice system failed us. Many of us had hired agencies licensed by
their state. This gave us a false sense of security. Many of us found
out that even if an agency is licensed by the state it does not mean
the agency is a good agency. We found that most state adoption
licensing divisions don’t even keep up with complaints or even
investigate complaints.
Many agencies have broken criminal and civil laws, yet there is no
one to prosecute these agencies. The foreign adoption business is a big
business. We feel that many American agencies are taking advantage of
unsuspecting families that are often desperate to adopt a child. These
agencies know that they have the upper hand. They have the children and
their client’s money; therefore they call all the shots. They know that
all they have to say is jump and the families will ask how high.
In light of the cases, which have been sent to you by some of our
members, grass-roots consumers of adoption services, we strongly
support S. 682. We believe your excellent legislation could be even
better if it included all or part of legislation introduced by
Representative Trafficant.
Sincerely,
Mary Mooney.

Our Story:

We spent over 10 years of trying to adopt in North Carolina
through our County Dept. of Social Services and The Children’s
Home Society. We completed a homestudy and followed all the
rules. Only after 2 years did we realized that it would be
almost impossible to adopt a child this way. We turned to
international adoption in May of 1995. We researched
international adoption and found it to be very popular and
there seemed to be many success stories. We looked all over the
US for an adoption agency. We wanted to deal with some one
local. Finally we found a licensed NC agency and felt very
happy with them. This agency made us feel that they would
personally be involved in every aspect of our adoption. They
assured us all would work out within 6 months and we would have
a healthy little boy in our home very soon. They showed us
pictures of cute children and assured us they had many children
to choose from.
What was supposed to be a wonderful experience turned in to
our worst nightmare. What seemed to be an organized agency
turned out to be very unorganized agency. Nobody seemed to ever
know what was going on, what papers we needed or when we would
travel. When we did travel to Russia the child was not
available for us to adopt. What we found was the US agency had
hired a very unethical and “known” adoption facilitator that
had a bad reputation all over the US.
The agency felt they had done nothing wrong. They would not
help us to recoup our money or would not even offer to assist
us in another adoption. Or worse, they did not even apologize.
We found the NC Adoption Licensing Division to be no help.
Local law enforcement was no help. The NC Attorney General
stated it was a matter to be handled by the NC Adoption
Licensing Division. The Licensing Division stated they have no
way of keeping up with complaints and felt it was not their
place or job to investigate complaints. They also stated that
since the adoption was an international adoption that would not
come under their care anyway. There was no one that would even
listen to our story.
Because of our problems I went to the Internet to seek
support. I found tremendous support and found many other
families that had similar problems through out the US. I
started a web page at http://www.ncplaza.com/aaguide/ to give
people a place to voice their opinions of their adoption agency
or worker. Since then I have had such a large response I moved
the site to a new address http://www.theadoptionguide.com. I
make no money from this site but spend countless hours E-
mailing with devastated families that are in need of emotional
support. I only wish I had the knowledge to give them the legal
advice they need.
State adoption licensing divisions do not have any legal
authority even if they had the resources to investigate a
complaint they do not have any authority to bring a law
complaint against an agency.
What I have seen over the years is adoption agencies open and
close at the drop of a hat. They close one place and move to
another state to open again under another name. Many agencies
change states and names often. Some agencies don’t even try to
get licensed and are not found out unless a family reports
them. And if they are called on by state licensing division
they just close up and move to another state.
In our case we were lucky to find an attorney that would take
our case. We filed a law complaint against this agency for
fraud and unethical practices. After 2 years we settled out of
court. We never recovered any of the $7,800 that we paid to the
facilitator. As part of the settlement we are not allowed to
speak about this agency.
I have found that if a family is able to find an attorney and
they can afford to pursue legal action the agencies will either
settle out of court or the family will get a judgment against
the agency that is usually never paid. Sadly most of the
stories I hear have a very sad ending. Because these families
have lost so much money they do not have the money to try and
adopt again. Many have borrowed against their homes or from
family members. This could be avoided if the adoption industry
were more regulated and accountable for their actions.
With S. 682 you have the opportunity to reform the adoption
laws to protect innocent families.
Respectfully,
Mary M. Mooney.

<greek-d>



<DOC>
[106 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:60674.wais]

                                                        S. Hrg. 106-257

   THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND COOPERATION IN
     RESPECT OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION: TREATY DOC. 105-51 AND ITS
                    IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION S. 682

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 5, 1999

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                 senate

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-674 CC                    WASHINGTON : 1999

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                 JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana            JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia              PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska                CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon              JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota                 RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri              ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
BILL FRIST, Tennessee
                   Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
                 Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------
                                                                   Page

Cox, Susan Soon-Keum, Vice President, Public Policy and External
  Affairs, Holt International Children's Services................    33
Federici, Ronald S., Psy.D., Clinical Director, Psychiatric and
  Neuropsychological Associates, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia......    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Harding, Tomilee, Executive Director, Christian World Adoption
  and President, Joint Council on International Children's
  Services.......................................................    20
Helms, Hon. Jesse A., U.S. Senator from North Carolina and
  Chairman of the Committee......................................     1
Holtan, Barbara, M.A., M.S.W., Director of Adoption Services,
  Tressler Lutheran Services, York, Pennsylvania.................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana..............     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
McDermott, Mark T. Esq., Legislative Chairman, American Academy
  of Adoption Attorneys..........................................    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
Ryan, Mary A., Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Consular
  Affairs; accompanied by Jamison Borek, Deputy Legal Advisor,
  Department of State............................................     3

                                Appendix

Additional Material Submitted to the Committee for the Record....    45

                                 (iii)

  CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND COOPERATION IN RESPECT OF
    INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION: TREATY DOC. 105-51 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING
                           LEGISLATION S. 682

                              ----------                              

                        TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1999

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms,
chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Senators Helms
and Smith. Also Present: Senator Landrieu.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JESSE A. HELMS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                         NORTH CAROLINA

    The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me
personally welcome all of you who are attending this hearing
this morning in addition to the witnesses who appear. It
indicates an interest on your part, which I think is very, very
significant. And I thank you for being here.
    Today, the Committee on Foreign Relations will hear from a
distinguished group of experts in the field of international
adoption. The focus will be on the questions of whether the
United States should ratify the Hague Convention on Protection
of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption. And that is a long title for a significant proposed
agreement now pending before our committee, along with
legislation that I introduced, along with Senator Mary
Landrieu, of Louisiana, I think it was last March, to implement
the Treaty.
    Now, I am pleased that Senator Landrieu cares about
adoption and is participating in this important hearing. This
distinguished lady Senator from Louisiana and I agree that this
Treaty and legislation must remain linked as we consider
intercountry adoption issues during this 106th Congress.
    Recent statistics reveal that in 1998, almost 15,800--
15,774 to be exact--children were adopted by Americans from
abroad. The majority of the children were brought to the United
States from Russia, China, Korea, and Central and South
American countries. And, like many others, I strongly support
adoption and believe international adoption represents a
growing avenue for children without families, let alone
adequate resources, to be given a home by parents who wish to
live with, love, and adopt these children.
    However, it is important to bear in mind that health-
related problems from children adopted abroad are increasingly
coming to light, raising questions about the adequacy of
preparation for adoptive parents. And I am convinced that
increased collection of data and analysis of international
adoptions, as called for in S. 682, will surely improve our
understanding of these problems.
    Since States regulate domestic adoption, the oversight of
international adoption has been lacking under United States
law. Health problems, including psychological and emotional
trauma, have led to a growing number of parents turning to
health services of private agencies to take custody of their
adopted children. And today's witnesses will address various
aspects of those problems.
    In some instances, parents are not adequately prepared for,
or have not been informed of, the health and emotional issues
of adopted children. Only after adoption do some parents learn
that the children suffer from symptoms of illnesses, such as
fetal alcohol syndrome, particularly in children from the
Soviet Union as it once existed, and now from Russia and the
former Soviet Union.
    The Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act, S. 682, is
intended to address some of these problems and bring
accountability to agencies that provide intercountry adoption
services in the United States. It will certainly strengthen the
hand of the Secretary of State, by ensuring that U.S. adoption
agencies operating abroad engage in efforts to find homes for
children in an ethical manner.
    Agencies must be accredited to operate under the Treaty,
and will receive accreditation only if they provide health
records to parents, basic instructions for dealing with
previously institutionalized children, and the preparation of
parents for potential health and emotional issues. A secondary
rationale for ratification and implementation of the Treaty is
the ability to preserve international adoption as an option for
parents in the United States.
    A number of countries are citing ratification of the Hague
Convention and implementation of its requirements as a
benchmark for permitting adoption agencies to continue
operations in their countries. Some of today's witnesses will
address the importance of Treaty ratification to ensure
maintenance of their operations.
    In any event, the Treaty's minimal requirements are
intended to provide a framework for ethical operation by
adoption agencies, including the creation of a competent
authority in Treaty countries to oversee international
adoption. Now the competent authority in Senator Landrieu's and
my bill, S. 682, will be the State Department. Therefore, this
Department will have the final say in the multitude of
questions that surely will arise.
    Under our bill, the States, not the Federal Government, the
States, the 50 States, and not the bureaucrats in Washington,
D.C., will continue to oversee domestic adoption. As a result,
S. 682 puts the State Department in the lead, and does not
concede the oversight of international adoption to the
Department of Health and Human Services, as the administration
has requested that we do.
    So, State Department consular officials are on the ground,
working with adoption agencies and parents on a daily basis.
And I think they are best able to monitor the activities of
those adoption agencies.
    Let us ask the first panel member, the Hon. Mary A. Ryan,
Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Consular
Affairs, to come and sit at the witness table. And you may
proceed, ma'am. We are glad to have you, and appreciate your
coming.

STATEMENT OF MARY A. RYAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU
OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMISON BOREK, DEPUTY LEGAL
                  ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I am really delighted to be here today to
have the opportunity to discuss international adoption and the
1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. With me today
from the Department of State's Office of the Legal Advisor is
Jamison Borek, the Deputy Legal Advisor, in case you should
have questions that are better answered by an expert attorney.
    I would like to thank you personally, Mr. Chairman, for the
interest you have shown in the Convention and in its
implementation. I would also like to commend all the staff who
have worked so diligently on this effort. Both the implementing
legislation you have introduced and the administration's
proposed legislation were prepared with the best interest of
children in mind. And while there are some difference, there
are many similarities between our two proposals.
    The welfare and protection of American citizens is the
State Department's highest priority. This includes American
parents building families through international adoption, and
American children finding families abroad through international
adoption. We want to ensure that our children are protected
once overseas, and that those brought to our shores and their
adoptive parents are equally protected. These are concerns that
you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Senator Landrieu, have voiced, and
that many Members of Congress share.
    The United States, particularly since World War II, has
opened its arms to orphaned and abandoned children around the
world. And many Americans have looked to international adoption
to build American families and to provide a better life for
these children. These families are as diverse as America
itself, including extended families, married couples,
multicultural families, and single-parent households.
    Since 1995, more than 98,000 children have been adopted
from South Korea alone. In the 5-year period, 1976 to 1981,
more than 5,000 South American children were adopted by
Americans, almost 80 percent of them from Colombia. Since 1992,
over 15,000 children have come from Russia, 3,900 from
Guatemala, and 11,500 from China. We can only expect the
numbers to increase.
    Families throughout the United States have been enriched by
these children who have grown up to become business leaders,
doctors, lawyers, teachers, and community leaders. Some of
these children have devoted their lives to giving children like
themselves a chance to grow up in loving families.
    Sadly, however, along with all the positive benefits of
international adoption, I must acknowledge that there have been
some abuses. This fact ultimately prompted 66 countries to
convene in The Hague to prepare a convention to provide
standards for intercountry adoptions which would protect the
children, their birth parents and their adoptive parents.
Intergovernmental negotiations on what became the 1993 Hague
Convention on Intercountry Adoption began in 1991.
    The drafters of the Convention believe that a properly
safeguarded international adoption offered a better alternative
for the care of an orphaned or abandoned child than
institutional care in the child's country of origin. The
Convention was the first international stamp of approval for
the concept of intercountry adoption. It is designed to ensure
that adoptions will take place when they are in the child's
best interest, and that the abduction and trafficking in
children, and other abuses like that, will be prevented.
    In the years before negotiations began, and throughout the
lengthy deliberations, the United States delegation sought
guidance from the adoption community, including adoption
agencies, lawyers, social workers, and adoptive parents.
Representatives from the U.S. adoption community were on our
delegation through preparatory sessions. Following endorsement
by U.S. adoption interests and the American Bar Association,
the United States signed the Convention in 1994.
    Since its adoption, 35 countries have either ratified or
acceded to the Convention, and 12 others have signed. This
makes it perhaps the most quickly and enthusiastically accepted
Hague convention in more than the 100-year history of the Hague
Conference.
    The Convention requires that certain determinations, such
as adoptability of the child, eligibility to emigrate, parent
suitability and counseling, be made before adoption can
proceed. Every country must establish a national government-
level central authority. Every country must establish a
national government-level process for uniform screening and
authorization of adoption service providers. And certified
Convention adoptions must be recognized in all other party
countries.
    The Convention also imposes requirements that protect the
child's welfare throughout the adoption process. Under the
Convention, a mechanism will be in place to track outgoing
Hague adoption conventions, providing a level of protection
previously unavailable to U.S. children taken abroad for
adoption.
    After we signed the Convention, State, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the Department of Health and Human
Services continued to consult with the private adoption
community, with parents, with lawyers, and with other
professionals on the general concepts of the proposed Federal
implementing legislation. The resulting administration bill was
sent to the Congress in June 1998, and submitted once again
with very minor changes in May 1999.
    I would like to thank those from the other government
agencies and from the private sector who contributed to this
cooperative effort to create legislation. Both the Helms-
Landrieu bill, S. 682, and the proposed administration
implementing legislation would place the central authority in
the Department of State, where it would be located in the
Bureau of Consular Affairs' Office of Children's Issues.
    It would task the Department of State and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to develop a case tracking system
for all adoptions of children coming to the United States and
for all Hague adoptions of children leaving the United States.
It would allow the use of private, nonprofit entities to do
peer review and the actual accreditation and approval of U.S.
adoption service providers for intercountry adoptions. And it
would address the funding of the Department of State's
functions, to ensure that adequate resources exist for the
effective performance of its functions as the central
authority.
    There are of course differences in the two bills, one of
which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. And an important difference
is the designation of the agency with responsibility to
establish and to monitor these accreditation and approval of
intercountry, or international, adoption service providers.
    We are very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to you,
Senator Landrieu, for the confidence that you have placed in
the State Department. But we really believe that the Department
of Health and Human Services, the Federal Government agency
with relevant experience in evaluating and working with
domestic adoption programs and with social service providers,
is better suited to handle this function than is the Department
of State.
    Just as we are concerned for our children who must leave,
or who may leave the United States, in connection with their
adoption, so have other sending countries expressed concern
that their children will be properly protected by adoption
service providers in receiving countries, including in the
United States. In the vast majority of these countries, public
social welfare authorities are responsible for issues regarding
adoption. These authorities and their governments will be
reassured to have the Department of Health and Human Services,
a recognized player in the provision of social services,
charged with the oversight for the accrediting of adoption
service providers for intercountry adoptions.
    The world will watch how the United States implements this
Convention and how it protects its children, birth parents and
adoptive parents. Several of the largest source countries have
indicated to us that they are looking to us to ratify and to
implement the Convention quickly, and that they plan to model
their own programs after ours. This latter point is
particularly important as it bears directly on the ability of
American parents to adopt abroad.
    Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that you and members of this
committee and Senator Landrieu have taken such an interest in
this Convention that will benefit children and their birth and
adoptive parents. Americans adopt more children internationally
than any other countries. Our citizens will benefit the most
from the safeguards of this important Treaty.
    We believe it is crucial now that the Senate provide advice
and consent to the United States ratification of the Convention
and that the Congress pass implementing legislation. We are
eager to work with the Congress and the adoption community to
safeguard and to facilitate intercountry adoptions for all of
those qualified, and to bring children and parents together to
bond as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you this morning.
    The Chairman. And a very fine statement it is, Madam
Secretary.
    We have now been joined by the lady of the hour. And I can
say frankly and honestly that there is nobody in the Senate
whom I admire or respect greater than I do Mary Landrieu. I
know you must have an opening statement, and you may proceed.
By the way, Mary is not a member of this committee, but I
insisted that she come here and act like one.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. She is running this show, really.
    You may proceed.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU,
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

    Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for all the
treaties pending before this very important committee and you,
our ranking member, and the members of this committee for
taking time this morning to discuss this issue. I want to thank
you for putting the needs of the children in our country and
the world first, and giving us 2 hours this morning to try to
move this process along.
    And I want to thank you, Madam Secretary, for your
testimony, and thank you for being so welcoming and generous
when I first arrived to the Senate, in our meeting on this
subject over 2 years ago.
    I do have an opening statement; however, I wish to keep my
remarks short, because I am very interested in hearing from the
experts who have come to share their insights with us today.
Mr. Chairman, I have read their testimony in advance of the
meeting; and I would just like to make a few comments that I
think are important in setting the stage for this morning's
hearing.
    To all those following this treaty and its progress, I want
to say that the United States is as interested in our children
being adopted, and recognize that we have many challenges here
in the United States in our domestic adoption arena. This
Congress and administration, have taken extraordinary steps in
the last couple of years to make sure that in our own country,
every child has a home, a loving home, parents to raise them.
We acknowledge in the United States that a home is a much
better setting, or a family, than an institution.
    I have been questioned by people in the international
community, asking why are we so focused on international
adoption and not on domestic? I want to make clear that we are
focused on both. In the United States, we not only believe that
every child in the United States deserves a home but also every
child in the world.
    Of course, as outlined by The Hague, which is one of the
most wonderful things about it, Mr. Chairman, the first place
to try to find a home for a child would be in their country of
origin. If that is not possible, for whatever reason, then that
child should be allowed to be adopted outside of the country,
as opposed to having them spend their life in a hospital or an
institution. A hospital of institution is not a very good
setting in which to raise a child. No matter how wonderful the
care can be, no matter how good it could be and how well it
could be provided, it is no match to what a family could
provide.
    In addition, as the Secretary has mentioned, the other
fundamental goal here is to establish a legal system for the
international community, a system that can be trusted, a system
that can have safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse and
corruption, and exorbitant fees often associated with
international adoption. Such factors are real psychological
barriers and legal barriers to finding a home for every child.
    And we have, as you know, Mr. Chairman, because you have
provided a home for one of these children and I have provided
homes for two, millions and millions of children without
families. These barriers most come down in order for the good
people in this room to do the work that I believe God has
called them to do and which they are all doing so well.
    And with that said, I am just anxious to hear the testimony
of those who have joined us today. I will end with this. We
know that the bill we have drafted is a good bill. We had a lot
of input on it, and from that input we know it is not perfect.
We hope this morning we will hear some ways that our bill can
be perfected, it can be improved.
    We recognize that is the political process, that we can
hopefully improve on this work and come out at the end with the
best document that we can come out with. A bill that will
reduce the barriers, promote international adoption and provide
the safeguards that we all want.
    So I thank you very much. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
a more formal statement to submit at the end of the hearing
this morning.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman, the
ranking member from Delaware and other members of the Foreign Relations
Committee for making room in your busy schedule for this important
hearing. In addition, I would like to personally thank each of the
witnesses here today, who have come to share with us their personal
stories and their expertise in international adoption. I am confident
that their experiences and insights will help us to improve this piece
of legislation. We know that it is not perfect as written, but it is
our hope that we can work together to make it as close to perfect as we
can.
    In my office, next to my desk, I keep a copy of a print I am
certain many of you have seen before, which is entitled ``priorities.''
It depicts a small child playing in a bed of flowers. Its inscription
reads ``one hundred years from now, it will not matter what my clothes
look like, what car I drive, or how much money is in my bank account,
but the world may be a bit better because I made a difference in the
life of a child.'' Today, this hearing is about making a significant
difference in the life of not one child but in the lives of millions of
children and families in the U.S. and around the world. It's about
making sure that the welfare of children is an international priority.
    Perhaps, the most significant aspect of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption and its implementing legislation is that it
ensures that a legal system exists in which the best interests of
children are of the utmost priority. Furthermore, for the first time,
the international community has formally acknowledged that a family can
better serve the needs of a child than a hospital or institution.
    In crafting Senate Bill 682 as he did, the chairman maintained the
treaty's focus on the best interest of the child and adapted its
requirements to work in the United States. This was not an easy task.
As many of you know, in the United States, issues of children and
family are primarily dealt with by state law. Therefore, implementation
of the Hague Convention involved more difficult legal political
coordination questions for the United States than for other countries
which have a more legal governmental system.
    It is our responsibility, as the delegates at the convention did
before us, to work honestly through our differences in how we believe
each title would be written, and commit ourselves to ratifying this
treaty. Too much time has passed already. The United States has always
been a leader in the protection of human rights and dignity. Yet,
twenty seven other countries have ratified the Hague and nine have
acceded to it. It has been over five years since the U.S. signed the
treaty. We cannot afford any more time to be lost. We must once again
establish ourselves as a leader in this important process.
    Our delay in ratifying this treaty has caused other countries to be
concerned when allowing their children to be adopted by our citizens
and understandably so. These countries are entrusting American families
with their most precious resource--their children. As other countries
continue to ratify the Convention, they agree to place children for
adoption only with countries that offer the same protections. Further
delay or failure to ratify and implement the treaty could result in
thousands of American families without the opportunity to adopt from
abroad.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Before we call the next panel, I want you to meet one of
the attorneys of the Foreign Relations Committee. You stated
the understanding on the time. Could you use the microphone and
state that for the record?
    Ms. McNerney. Yes sir, when we get to the private panel we
will allow each of the witnesses five minutes to provide
testimony..
    The Chairman. But you talked about the red light.
    Ms. McNerney. Yes, we will be turning on the light in front
of the chairman. So when it hits red, your 5 minutes are up.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. We have to do that because sometimes you run
across people who will go 15 or 20 minutes over time. And that
fractures whatever orders you have made of your agenda up to
then. Thank you very much.
    Do you have questions?
    Senator Landrieu. No. I am fine.
    The Chairman. Well, let me see if I do not have one.
    The State Department, I believe you said, currently
oversees intercountry adoptions and assigns caseworkers for
this purpose. Does the Department of Health and Human Services
currently have any responsibility for intercountry adoption?
And I know the answer to that one.
    Ms. Ryan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you know the answer to that.
That is no. But they have a network in the United States
already in existence that does accreditation in the health
field. And so they have the experience domestically which we do
not have. We are not a domestic service agency. We are foreign
affairs. And we do foreign affairs. We do not do accreditation
of domestic organizations.
    And my concern, Mr. Chairman, is that if this bill passes,
your bill passes, and we get this responsibility, we will do
the best we can to carry it out, but there are opportunity
costs that come into play here. And that is the time it will
take us to gear up to do it, to startup to do it, because we do
not have the experience. So we would have to get people. We
would have to have more staff. And we would have to develop the
experience. And this is going to take time. And that is my
concern--that the time spent doing this could be time that HHS
would be already doing the accreditation, whereas we are
learning how to do it. And that is the problem that I have with
it, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, the point I wanted to emphasize, and if
you will pardon the intrusion of the word ``baby,'' this is the
State Department's baby and not any other Federal agency--if
the record will show that. At least that is the intent of this
author of the bill.
    Will the Convention prohibit improper payments to
government officials anywhere?
    Ms. Ryan. Yes, it does, sir.
    The Chairman. Such payments, I think there were some under
certain circumstances before, but they were clearly a violation
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
    As of August 26th of this year, 26 countries, I believe you
said, had ratified the Convention and nine had acceded to it.
Of the top 20 countries sending orphans to be adopted in the
United States in 1998, only Romania, Colombia, the Philippines,
Mexico, Brazil, and Poland are parties to the Convention; is
that right?
    Ms. Ryan. That is correct, sir.
    The Chairman. The top five countries for adoption, Russia,
China, South Korea, Guatemala, and Vietnam, they have not even
signed the Convention yet, have they?
    Ms. Ryan. They have not, sir. It is our belief that they
are waiting to see what we do, and that they are going to
pattern their own development of the mechanisms for the
Convention based on what we are doing.
    The Chairman. Well, I certainly hope that is the case. And
as the Treaty takes effect, do you expect that adoptions will
increase in countries that are party to the Convention?
    Ms. Ryan. Yes, I believe they will, sir.
    The Chairman. And will they decrease among the non-parties?
    Ms. Ryan. That is hard to say. I do not know. I really do
not know.
    The Chairman. I do not know if there is any way to tell
that except with a crystal ball. And I do not have mine with me
this morning.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Do you believe parents adequately understand
the risk when they travel to areas like the Caucasus?
    Ms. Ryan. When they travel to areas like?
    The Chairman. To the Caucasus?
    Ms. Ryan. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that they
understand the risks. In some cases, we have had some parents,
our Embassy in Moscow has reported to us, that some parents
were actually going to try to go into Chechnya to look for
children. Which is, as you know, there is a state of war
between Russia and Chechnya. And we find that extremely
dangerous.
    But what it does show, I think, Mr. Chairman, is the
generosity, the great heartedness of the American people in
going into very risky areas to find children at risk. Every
time that there is a crisis in the world, our Office of
Children's Issues is inundated with calls from people who want
to know how to adopt the children in that particular country,
whatever country it is. And I can only stand in admiration of
American people who do things like that. I mean it is just
remarkable.
    The Chairman. The U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Jim Collins,
sent me a cable the other day. He warned that despite warnings
from the Embassy and a policy to prohibit even State Department
travel to the Chechnya, North Ossetia--I do not even know where
these places are--Dagestan, and Ingushetia--where in the heck
is that?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Landrieu. Somebody should know.
    The Chairman. Do you know?
    Ms. Ryan. No, sir, I do not. I mean it is somewhere in the
former Soviet Union, but I do not know where exactly it is.
    The Chairman. The Ambassador indicated that in the last 4
years, four foreigners were kidnapped and decapitated in that
region. And he said, you better watch out. And let me see, I am
trying to cut down on this because I know you are a busy lady.
    Do you believe that this Convention will eliminate
unnecessary bureaucratic steps?
    Ms. Ryan. I hope so, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. What can be done to facilitate customer
service at the INS?
    Ms. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I am not going to touch
that.
    Senator Landrieu. That is a loaded question, Mr. Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I thought I would get a rise out of that.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. You are mighty nice to come.
    Do you have questions?
    Senator Landrieu. Just a comment. As the chairman stated,
he feels very strongly about the role of the State Department,
and I was hoping that maybe you would have a suggestion about,
given that, a way of a partnership arrangement perhaps between
the State Department and Health and Human Services. Because
both agencies, if either one were designated, would have to
contract some of this work out anyway.
    So perhaps while the time may be short this morning, the
State Department could think about some sort of partnership.
Because I think the chairman feels very strongly about this.
And even if we have to provide some additional staffing, I
think this committee is of a mind to do that, at least
initially. So perhaps you could give some thought and maybe
submit something back in writing or communicate.
    Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Senator. We certainly will do that.
Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. We would
be glad for you to stick around if you have time. If you want,
you could do it. I would invite you to come up here and pretend
you are a Senator.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Seriously, thank you very much for coming.
    All right, now panel two, Dr. Ronald S. Federici, Clinical
Director, Psychiatric and Neuropsychological Associates, of
Alexandria, Virginia; Ms. Barbara A. Holtan, Director of
Adoption Services, Tressler Adoption Services, York,
Pennsylvania; Mrs. Tomilee Harding--this is a special lady from
my home State--Tomilee Harding, Executive Director, Christian
World Adoption, from Hendersonville, North Carolina, which is a
beautiful part of our State; Mr. Mark T. McDermott, Legislative
Chairman of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys in
Washington; and Ms. Susan Soon-Keum Cox, Vice President of
Public Policy and External Affairs, Holt International
Children's Services, Eugene, Oregon.
    What a distinguished looking panel.
    Senator Landrieu. A wonderful group.
    The Chairman. And, Ms. Mary, before I forget it, I do not
know about you, but I am so delighted to see all of these other
people who are here this morning. That is a measurement, I
think, of the interest and the desire to make sure that this
kind of thing, which all of us are so much concerned with, is
done right.
    Senator Landrieu. Absolutely. I want to thank them, too.
    The Chairman. Let me take the liberty of saying this lady
is a mother who has adopted children, beautiful children. And
that is one of the reasons I like her.
    We will start on the left, which is the way the television
cameras would see you, or the right. Anyway, we will start with
you, Dr. Federici.

  STATEMENT OF RONALD S. FEDERICI, PSY.D., CLINICAL DIRECTOR,
     PSYCHIATRIC AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
                      ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

    Dr. Federici. Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, it is a
pleasure to be here. Committee members, thank you very much for
allowing me the opportunity to testify.
    My name is Dr. Ronald Federici. I am a developmental
neuropsychologist, which basically means I specialize in
evaluating children with neurodevelopmental and psychiatric
difficulties. I am Professor of Pediatrics and Neuropsychology
and Child Development. I lecture extensively throughout the
United States and internationally. And I am also an honorary
member of the remaining Department of Child Welfare, because my
medical team works extensively in Romania, working on the
institution projects.
    I am also very proud to be the adoptive parent of four
internationally adopted children, and have recently gained
guardianship with two other children in Romania.
    My professional colleagues in international adoption
medicine have basically designated me as the one who has seen
the most difficult children. My estimate is that I have seen
over 1,500 to 1,600 internationally adopted children who are in
their school age years for various evaluations for neurological
or psychiatric difficulties.
    Basically, I am speaking to the committee on behalf of my
work and research, which I am also going to offer to the
committee, as well as some other supportive documentation. And
I am very proud to have many of the families and support groups
here in the audience who I have worked alongside for many, many
years, who would corroborate some of the difficulties that have
surfaced regarding international adoptions and adoption
practices.
    While I am not an attorney, my job is to be an investigator
and work with the families to help them provide the most
detailed assessment of their child's special needs, and also to
help develop the most appropriate treatment plans to bring the
child to their maximum potential.
    If I may just say that I have probably, in my research
sample, and it is included in my testimony which the committee
has already, we are organizing a very detailed research sample,
in conjunction with Dr. Dana Johnson and the University of
Minnesota, and Dr. Pat Mason, of Emory University, which should
solidify all the data on the long-term effects of
institutionalization regarding thousands of cases.
    In my one sample, which I have seen, which has been
reported, of over 1,500 internationally adopted children, every
one of them were informed by their adoption agency that they
were healthy. All 1,500 of them were not healthy.
    I broke down the statistics in terms of by numbers. But if
we were to look at approximations, 50 to 60 percent of the
children had long-term chronic problems; 20 to 30 percent had
refractory or chronic difficulties that would require lifelong
care and probably a lack of independence on the part of the
child; and less than 20 percent of our sample, which is
corroborated now with an additional sample that I have provided
from Emory University, since they have also done recent data
collections, show that the children were able to be resilient.
    Again, sir, all of the children were advised by their
agencies that they were healthy. The statements that were made
consistently to me from the families, since I have had the
opportunity to review a modicum of medical records, that to
disregard the medical records, the children will be fine, they
are slightly delayed, they need a loving home, they need care,
health, hygiene, and everything would be fine.
    This turned out to be absolutely incorrect, at least in our
assessment now of the older children, since what we are finding
out about the long-term effects of institutionalization, from
nutritional, medical and psychological neglect, which I have
supplied some of the most up-to-date research from researchers
across the country who would corroborate the findings, is that
children from internationally adopted settings, regardless of
age, are deemed a very high-risk population and require very
special families to handle these cases.
    In my work with Romanian Secretary of State Tabacaru, he
recommends that every child out of Romania receive a label as a
handicapped child or a child at risk for delays.
    Some of the other critical issues that seem to come about
is that the families were grossly ill prepared, overwhelmed. I
have dealt with families who divorced, went bankrupt. Many
relinquished their children. The majority of the families were
in states of despair and depression, where they did not know
how to deal with the situation of a, quote, healthy child.
    All families passed the home study. In my years, 20 years
of practice, I have yet to see a family fail a home study.
Several of the families that passed home studies were active
alcoholics, drug addicts, out of prison, financially ill
prepared, unemployed, and so forth and so on, where they were
clearly not afforded a proper home study or psychological
evaluation, which has, for the most part, been deleted as a
critical part of the home study.
    I have now been called upon to be a participant in numerous
litigations against agencies. I have served as an expert
witness several times, and right now I am involved in eight
different litigations against 10 different agencies.
    So, in summary, sir, there seems to be quality control over
the preparation for the families. The families are very ill
prepared. There seems to be some misinformation provided to the
1,500 families who had, quote, healthy children, when all were
impaired at some level, with many of the families wondering why
they would pay so much money for a handicapped child.
    Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to
testify.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Federici follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Dr. Federici

    I, Dr. Ronald Steven Federici, am a Board Certified Developmental
Neuropsychologist and expert in severely delayed children, particularly
children from post-institutionalized settings. I have been in
professional practice for 20 years and have evaluated approximately
1800 adopted and internationally adopted children. I am regarded as the
Country's expert in the neuropsychological evaluation and treatment of
the post-institutionalized child and lecture nationally and
internationally on this topic. I am the author of ``Help for the
Hopeless Child: A Guide for Families (With Special Discussion for
Assessing and Treating the Post-Institutionalized Child)''. Also, I am
the parent of six internationally adopted children; four of which
reside with us in the United States and the other two I raise in their
home country of Romania in which I maintain legal guardianship.
    I have been evaluating internationally adopted children since
early-mid 1980's to present. I have evaluated approximately 1800 post-
institutionalized children and have collected extensive data which is
now being reviewed and incorporated into a major research project with
Dr. Dana Johnson at the University of Minnesota and Dr. Patrick Mason
at Emory University. My preliminary data is referenced in my book and
will be further outlined in my summary testimony.
    Families come to see me from all over the United States and now
England and Ireland in order to receive my expertise in developmental
neuropsychological evaluations. Virtually every family who has come to
see me was informed by their adoption agency that their child was
either ``healthy'' or had ``mild developmental delays which would
improve with a loving and nurturing family''. I have reviewed thousands
of medical and psychiatric records on these post-institutionalized
children and have also heard thousands of the exact same story from
families who have adopted regarding their experience with their
international adoption agency.
    There is a very important point to be made here regarding the
entire international adoption process, even prior to the child being
placed. In my 20 years of practice and, most recently, the extensive
work with internationally adopted children, I have yet to see a family
fail a ``home study'' which was provided by the agency. For example, I
have a family in which both parents were active alcoholics and in
treatment, but were allowed to adopt two children. When I confronted
them how they passed the home study, they openly informed me that their
adoption agency told them ``we just won't put that in the home study''.
I have many other cases in which it was clear one parent was mentally
ill, or both had significant emotional and marital problems but yet
passed the home study. I even have one case in which the father was out
of jail for sexual offenses and passed the home study in order to adopt
a child from Russia. Therefore, what is the purpose of a home study if
it does not measure or adequately assess any psychological domains of
the perspective parents or the agency will go as far as omitting
important information.
    Specifically, all of the families who have come to see me have felt
at the end of their patience and totally overwhelmed and frustrated. By
the time families make it to my office, they have seen multiple medical
and psychiatric providers who still have not been able to reach a
conclusion or consensus regarding the type of illness or damage to
their child. The families have consistently told me that they have
brought their concerns to their international adoption agency, but have
rarely--if ever--received any type of support, encouragement or even
proper referral to those of us who are designated experts in
international adoption medicine. Actually, many of the families were
told to avoid specialists such as myself or others across the country
as ``we would only find a problem with their child which was not true
as the child just needed more time and love to adjust''.
    Most families sought out my services as well as specialty services
from other international adoption specialists through the Parent
Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child (PNPIC), Friends of
Russian and Ukranian Adoptions (FRUA), word of mouth or by reading
various articles I have published or my recently published book.
Additionally, families with damaged internationally adopted children
flock to conferences sponsored by the Parent Network which have now
totaled over 17 across the United States and in the United Kingdom. In
these conferences which I have co-sponsored and lectured, rarely do we
see international adoption agency personnel. Actually, agencies avoid
these conferences and avoid dealing directly with the significant
problems that many post-institutionalized children experience.
    In my preliminary research statistics, based on a sample of 1500
internationally adopted, post-institutionalized children, with an
average age of 4.2 years and an average time in the institution from
24-through-84 months, of the adoption agencies informed the families
that the children were ``healthy or only mildly delayed which would
improve with a loving family''. The medical records clearly indicated
that the child showed high risk pre- and post-natal factors such as
fetal alcohol exposure, prematurity, nutritional neglect, low birth
weight, or just the damaging effects of living in a deprived
institution. Also, there are frequently uncertain ``medical diagnoses''
put on the child's records such as perinatal encephalopathy, hypoxia or
various other unusual terms. While the medical experts consistently
state that these Eastern European diagnoses might not mean anything,
caution is still provided to the parents. International adoption
agencies frequently tell the parents to ``disregard the medical records
from the country as they have to put something down in order for the
child to be adopted out''. We are now finding that many of the true
medical records may lack clarity or sophistication in diagnostic
nomenclature, but are in fact correct in defining a child who is at
high risk or ill at some level.
    The neuropsychological outcome factors of these 1500 children
yields the following:

          1. 450 or approximately 30% of the sample had severe
        neuropsychiatric disorders such as mental retardation, autism,
        fetal alcohol syndrome, or chronic and long-term disabilities.
          2. 750 or approximately 50% of the sample displayed mild-to-
        moderate learning disabilities and developmental disorders
        which required life-long special education, medical and
        psychiatric interventions.
          3. 375 or approximately 20% of the sample displayed
        relatively ``clean'' or benign neuropsychological and
        psychological difficulties which would continue to improve over
        the course of time and with the appropriate medical,
        psychological and educational interventions along with routine
        acculturation.

    Therefore, 80% of the children I have evaluated whose families were
told by their agency that they were ``healthy'' were, in fact
neuropsychiatrically impaired and would pose a financial and emotional
burden to the family for life. I fully realize that families come to me
for evaluation of problems, but if one provider such as myself has seen
so many impaired internationally adopted children, there must be
definite problems in the entire international adoption process
beginning at the time of the child being identified in their home
country (grossly inaccurate medical and psychiatric assessments).
Additionally, it is absolutely inappropriate for international adoption
agencies to tell families who are adopting children from such high risk
countries such as Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, other Eastern European
countries, India as well as Central and South America is that ``all
children need is a loving and stable home and time to adjust''.
    Many of the agencies have recently published their ``research and
surveys'' regarding internationally adopted children. In the most
recent one completed by a Washington, D.C. agency, they touted that
only ``less than 10% of the children had problems and that most were
doing well''. Professional researchers and critics have totally
disregarded these surveys as they are no more than ``content surveys''.
Most families are happy they have a child which is the target of these
surveys, but there is no real mention or assessment regarding the level
of disabilities. Emory University International Child Clinic and the
Parent Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child are now conducting
a more professional national survey and finding completely contrary
results from the Washington, D.C. based survey. It is very clear that
proper professional evaluation of the internationally adopted child
indicates that these children are a ``very high risk population''. Just
for the Senate hearing records, I offered a modicum of professional
input and proper neurological and psychiatric assessment surveys to the
Washington, D.C. adoption agency who published the recent ``contentment
survey'' that I am sure the agencies will discuss. I spent ample time
in helping them formulate a proper research survey, but was informed by
the Director (following a presentation regarding neuropsychological
work with post-institutionalized children) that if ``she were to tell
families everything that I have presented or given to their agency,
that no one would adopt''. This sums up the issue and clearly shows
that financial gain and increasing adoption numbers took priority over
quality assurance and protection of the perspective adoptive family.
    The agencies maintain a ``wait and see philosophy'' and have rarely
recommended to my families immediate and aggressive evaluation and
treatment. Even when families take my neuropsychological or other
medical data back to the agency in an effort to point out that their
child is severely impaired or delayed, many agencies which I can
specifically name and identify, have told families to disregard my
evaluation and keep getting additional opinions with the hope of
finding the child healthy and discredit my findings or those of my
professional colleagues. It should be emphasized that by the time
families come to me, I am, in fact, the last opinion or the one they
count on the most based on my expertise and extensive experience with
the post-institutionalized child.
    I am an Honorary member of the Romanian Department of Child
Protective Services and President of the Romanian Challenge Appeal
which is an international humanitarian aid organization. I have over 30
medical specialists from all disciplines who have worked in Romania
evaluating children in institutional settings. I have visited
institutions all over the world, particularly Romania, and it is very
clear that any child residing in such a deprived environment can and
must be labeled ``high risk'' due to the multitude of environmental,
medical, nutritional and deprivation risk factors which international
adoption agencies grossly minimize when the families are in the initial
stages of international adoption.
    A vast amount of my families have informed me that, when they went
to the country to pick up the child, it was very clear that the child
was sick and no where near the ``statement of health'' provided by the
international adoption agency. Many families have also informed me that
their child was switched at the last minute, or that their child was so
sick that they doubted he or she would make it home. Furthermore, many
of the families who adopted older children found the child to be
completely out of control and were completely ill-prepared to deal with
a violent and out of control child for the trip home.
    I have served as expert witness on several high profile cases such
as the murder ease in Colorado where the mother murdered her
internationally adopted toddler (Polreis case) in addition to the Thorn
case where the parents were arrested in New York for allegedly abusing
their two Russian toddlers who were out of control on the plane. I have
been asked to serve as an expert witness multiple times by families
filing suit against their international adoption agencies. In the cases
I have participated in, international adoption agencies withheld or
fabricated records, blatantly lied to the families regarding the health
status of the child, or were involved in some type of scandal between
the U.S. agency and the overseas NGO. I have personally witnessed
lawyers obtaining the true medical records on the children in which the
international adoption agency and NGO deliberately withheld. I have
seen cases settle for millions of dollars. I have seen families being
given a child who has Delta-D Hepatitis which is a terminal condition
when they were told the child was perfectly healthy and passed the
``exit medical examination'' in their home country in which the
hepatitis would have been picked up immediately if it were a legitimate
examination. In many of the cases, it was exceedingly clear that the
agency withheld valuable information from the families which would have
potentially changed their decision to adopt or prepare properly for
adopting a special needs child.
    I have seen a multitude of families disrupt their adoption because
they were no longer able to care for the child's financial and
emotional needs. I have seen families separate and divorce, or engage
in abuse of their child because the child exhibited grossly out of
control and aggressive behaviors. I have evaluated children who have
severe attachment disorders, neuropsychiatric conditions, sexual
offenders, killers of animals within the home, and several children who
have attempted to murder their siblings, parents or commit suicide. I
have consistently watched families feel devastated and enraged with
their international adoption agency who had promised them a ``healthy
child''.
    There are few, if any, international adoption agencies who have
provided adequate training for the high risk factors of the post-
institutionalized child. Follow up counseling or support from
international adoption agencies is virtually non-existent.
    It has been my professional and personal experience that, when
confronted, international adoption agencies maintain strong denial,
deceit and manipulation when they are forced to deal with a family that
has a damaged child. This is not an isolated occurrence, but a
situation which has occurred thousands of times. I urge the Committee
to consult with the Parent Network for the Post-Institutionalized Child
(Thais Tepper and Lois Hannon, Directors), in addition to various other
support groups around the country for families with internationally
adopted children. It would also be worthwhile for the Committee to
review the statistics of Tressler Lutheran Services in Pennsylvania as
directed by Barbara Holtan. This program has handled many disrupted
international adoptions and specialized in placing these very difficult
children.
    In summary, and as stated in my book, international adoption
agencies do a very poor job in preparing families for the high-risk
post-institutionalized child. They maintain a position of denial and
minimization regarding the damaging effects of institutional care and
sell families the fantasy that a ``good loving home and time will cure
all''. Yes, there are definitely many children who do well, but there
is a very large percentage of families with damaged children. If I,
myself, have seen nearly 2000 and the Parent Network for the Post-
Institutionalized Child has almost 6000 families having damaged
children, and other organizations having thousands of their own damaged
children and families, then there clearly is a need for better quality
control on the part of the international adoption agencies.
    Furthermore, all of the families who have come to me have spent a
minimum of $15,000-$20,000 to adopt their child which turned out to be
special needs. As stated by the Romanian Secretary of State, Dr.
Cristian Tabacarn, a Romanian adoption should cost no more than $4,000-
$5,000. Families are instructed to carry over large volumes of cash in
``new bills'' by their adoption agency to hand to the overseas
coordinator. This statement I can verify personally as I am the parent
of six internationally adopted children and was instructed by my agency
to carry over large sums of money in new bills and with specific
denominations. There is no accounting for this money that is sent
overseas and it is very clear that United States international adoption
agencies are making vast sums of money on adoptions, even the ones who
turned out to be handicapped.
    Agencies continue to resist working collaboratively with adoption
medicine specialists, families, parent support groups, post-placement
supportive programs. The problem continues in volumes as the number of
internationally adopted children rises each year. There is no quality
control or accountability that the agencies must be held to. There is
no standard of care, operation, financial accountability or, most
importantly, securing the most accurate, detailed and honest
information provided to the families. Families adopting are very
vulnerable and impressionable, and tend to believe the fantasy as
opposed to a painful reality which is often the case.
    Despite numerous attempts on my part to educate and offer free
training to any and all international adoption agencies, I have been
discounted and under utilized. JCICS recently sponsored the first
``International Medicine Adoption Conference'', but their practices
continue as it was very clear that many of the agencies in the audience
did not want to listen to the potential risk factors as this would
limit their adoption numbers and profit. They asked for training and
guidance, but turn around and do the same unethical and insensitive
practices time and time again.
    Several agencies are under lawsuit at this time for fraudulent
practice. I would be pleased to provide documentation of pending legal
cases ranging from Oregon to Ohio to New York to Washington, D.C. to
Florida to Texas to Arizona involving more than 10 different agencies.
I continue to provide expert testimony and life planning for many of
the children that I have evaluated that are severely impaired and for
families that are in the process of suing their international adoption
agency for fraudulent adoption practices. I have seen many cases settle
before the court hearing, but the settlement is ``sealed'' per the
request of the adoption agency, but I am aware of the settlement
amounts and the legal document which were so clear in defining fraud
and negligence. Currently, I have received requests from literally
hundreds of families who wish they had the opportunity to tell their
story to any governmental agency or regulatory body who may invoke some
type of quality assurance or control over international adoptions. This
is not just one or two angry families, but a very large cross-sectional
group of well informed families. Many of these families were hoping
their concerns would be heard at this type of Senate hearing.
    Without some form of governmental controls and monitoring, the
problem will continue. International adoption agencies seem to have a
difficult time in agreeing on how to ratify the Hague Convention as it
is clear they do not want accountability or monitoring.
    Any area of medicine would be held accountable for their action.
This is why we maintain a license which is subject to scrutiny by our
State Boards. International adoption agencies have a license, but are
not subject to any scrutiny or disciplinary action aside from the times
they wind up in court--which is on the increase. The more handicapped
or special needs internationally adopted children coming into the
country will continue to provide a challenge to the ill-prepared
family, their educational system, and to the medical and psychiatric
specialists trying their best to deal with the problems. Most
importantly, the financial strain on the families can and will result
in more disrupted adoptions or the child receiving less than optimal
services.
    With all of these factors in mind, it seems imperative that a
strong governmental position be taken regarding international adoption
agencies. Oversight, regulation, control regarding adoption practices
and financial accountability is of paramount importance.

    The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Holtan.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA HOLTAN, M.A., M.S.W., DIRECTOR OF ADOPTION
    SERVICES, TRESSLER LUTHERAN SERVICES, YORK, PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Holtan. Thank you. I am speaking to you today as an
adoptive parent also. Our three children by adoption are now
grown up and, I am happy to say, knocking on wood, they are
doing fine.
    I am also an adoption professional for the last 20 years.
And I have been working predominantly in the placement of
special needs American-born children into families here in the
United States. Our agency, Tressler Lutheran Services, works to
find families for the kids waiting in foster care right now.
    We all know in this room, I hope, that adoption is a win-
win situation. No one is even suggesting that adoption is
something that should happen or not happen. It just is, and it
needs to continue.
    In our profession, however, as in I think every profession,
sometimes folks get into it with less than stellar motivation.
We have seen this in the last recent years in international
adoption in particular, where people are doing this without the
education and knowledge they should have. As a result, as Ron
has mentioned, children are being placed into families who are
ill prepared to receive them.
    In February 1994, Tressler Lutheran started receiving phone
calls from families around the United States who had adopted
Eastern European children, came home, and now felt they could
not continue the adoption. They contacted Tressler because we
have a national reputation for finding homes for difficult
children.
    When these calls started, Senator, we were astonished at
the numbers that started to come in. Since February 1994, our
agency has been asked to find second families for 82 Eastern
European children. Now, that may seem like a small number. But
I went back in our statistics and, in the 10 years previous, we
were asked to replace 18 internationally born children. And in
the last 5 years, it has been 82. That is way too high.
    The three things that we would like to offer to you as ways
to avoid the majority of these disruptions--there will always
be some; as long as we are dealing with human beings, that is
going to happen--but we can get the numbers down. And the first
way to do it is good, solid preparation for the pre-adoptive
families. Every agency that is placing adoptive children should
be preparing their families. Tell them the negative as well as
the positive. Nudge them along to think long term, as opposed
to just the getting of the child.
    We must have people understand that the raising of them is
equally as important as the getting. So family preparation,
anything that can have agencies understand the importance of
that we are for it. And this bill does address this.
    The second thing is that families must receive full
disclosure on the children they are considering. That means
material in English. It also means that they should be given
sufficient time to consider the referral materials, to read
about the child and make a lifetime commitment to him. We are
told that some agencies give families 24 hours to make a
decision of whether they want to adopt this child. That is
totally beyond the pale.
    So, first, it is family preparation. Second is the full
disclosure. And the third part is post-placement services. And
that means that after the family comes home from Russia,
Romania, wherever, the agency that was there in the beginning
to help them form a family will be there for them after the
fact, to help them as needed.
    At Tressler, we receive about 13 to 15 calls a month from
old families who adopted from us 5 years ago, 10 years ago,
needing something from us, needing some help. We respond to
every single one of those calls. I believe that any agency,
facilitator or attorney who is dealing with adoption must be
available after the fact to be there for these families.
    Somehow we got the idea that internationally born kids
would not have problems and difficulties. I do not know how we
did that. We know that children in the foster care system have
many, many long-term problems. What I would like to suggest, as
did Ron, and I think others will as well, any child in a
Russian orphanage is a special needs child. And the families
who adopt him must be prepared for that.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Holtan follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Barbara Holtan

    I speak to you as an adoptive parent and from the perspective of a
twenty-year career as an adoption professional. Three of our 5 now
grown children, Seth, Kimberly and Timothy, joined us by adoption from
Vietnam and Korea. They are wonderful, functional adults now who have
given and continue to give my husband and me great joy.
    My message to you is that adoption works. In the vast majority of
cases, it is successful and provides a win-win situation for parents
and children. We all benefit when a child finds a parent or two of his
own to stand between him and the darkness of belonging to no one. As
such, adoption should be encouraged and celebrated. There are excellent
adoption agencies and professionals in the US working diligently to
serve waiting children and they too should be celebrated and
encouraged.
    Unfortunately, however, the adoption field, like all professions,
can attract those with less than altruistic motivations and others who
are enthusiastic but naive. International adoption, in particular,
seems to have attracted more than its share of such individuals in
recent years. Whether or not international adoption should continue is
not the issue. How we can work together to improve it and bring all
those engaged in it to Best Practice Standards is the issue.
    I am the Director of Adoption for Tressler Lutheran Services
providing service to families in PA, DE and MD. Our primary mission and
mandate for the 27 years of our program has been to find loving
permanent families for children with Special Needs--predominantly
children from the foster care system in the U.S. We have also
participated in international adoptions throughout our history through
partnership with other reputable and knowledgeable U.S. based agencies.
    Our history is long. Our knowledge base is significant. Our
expertise is in preparing families for adoption and supporting and
nurturing those adoptive families over time.
    In February of 1994, we began receiving calls from adoptive
families around the country--families we did not know--had not worked
with--who were strangers to us. They were desperate, angry, sad,
frightened. They were asking TLS to find another family for their child
by adoption since they felt they could not continue. They were turning
to TLS due to our national reputation of finding families for hurt and
emotionally fragile children.Since February of 1994, we have received
calls such as this steadily. As of now, we have been asked to re-place
82 children--all adopted from Eastern Europe by American families.
Disruption is the term used to describe adoptions which are not working
out resulting in the child needing to leave the family and hopefully
enter into a second adoption. While 82 disruption requests in five
years may seem small considering the thousands of children entering the
U.S. via international adoption, it is important to note the following:

          (1) This is only a TLS number--There is no tracking mechanism
        for disruptions nationally.
          (2) During the ten-year period previous at TLS we received 18
        such requests--18 in ten years vs. 82 in five years.
          (3) All of the requests came from parents of Eastern European
        born children--predominantly Russia, second Romania.

    These numbers are alarming to us. If TLS or another agency is
unable to find a second family for these children, many will--and
perhaps already have--enter the U.S. Child Welfare System. What have we
accomplished in bringing the child from institutional care in Russia to
end up in U. S. foster care system? The emotional toll on the parents
and the children is enormous.
    As long as adoptions occur, there will be adoption disruptions.
Every one is heartbreaking, but they are a reality since we are dealing
with human beings. However, the numbers of disruptions can be lessened
if all those involved in the placement of children for adoption do the
following:

          (1) Provide good, solid, pre-adoption parent preparation and
        education. This is vital in order for the adoptive applicant to
        make good choices regarding his motivation, ability and desire
        to adopt a child. Give both the positive and the negative.
        Nudge the adopters to take the long view. Work to move them
        from naive enthusiasm to educated and wise individuals who,
        when they make the lifelong commitment to a child, they
        understand as fully as possible, the depth of this commitment.

    TLS has been providing such education to our adopting families for
the past 27 years. It is the cornerstone and strength of our program.

          (2) Provide to the adopters full disclosure--in English--of
        everything that can possibly be found on the child's current
        status, health, developmental level, social history and family
        background. Give the adopter sufficient time to read, digest
        and consider this information before pushing them for a
        commitment to the child.

          (3) Provide post placement services to the family. Be there
        for them after they return home for whatever they need in terms
        of support, information, education in order to nurture the
        placements over time.

    Adoption is not an act; it is a process. Far too many adoption
agencies and facilitators see it only as the act of getting the child,
Far more attention must be paid to the long view: the process of
raising that child to adulthood. If we are privileged to be a part of
creating this family by adoption, we must be available to that family
over time.
    U.S. Agencies who place Special Needs children into adoptive homes
already know the importance of this three-fold approach: Education--
Full Disclosure--Post Placement Services. We provide full service to
our families. How is it that we think that those adopting overseas
should receive any less? Standards of good practice must apply to all
adopters equally. Surely, a child in a Russian orphanage who is
receiving little or no individual attention, stimulation and nurturing
is as much a Special Needs child as one in the foster care system of
the United States. Surely the American considering adopting that child
deserves to receive the same amount of preparation before the adoption
and the same amount of assistance after they return home.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

    The Chairman. What a fine statement.
    Please forgive me. The distinguished Senator from Oregon,
an able member of this committee, has left another committee
meeting to come here to pay his respects and make some
comments. And if you will forgive me, I am going to call on
Gordon Smith. And we welcome you, sir, and appreciate your
coming.
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored by
your courtesy. I am here out of a great interest in this issue.
I appreciate your holding this hearing.
    I specifically want to welcome Susan Cox, of Holt
International, who is one of your witnesses and a resident of
my State. Holt International is an agency that is headquartered
in Eugene, Oregon.
    I would also like to pay tribute to my wife Sharon, who is
behind me, who is here, from Oregon today. And she and I are
the parents of three adopted children and, like Senator
Landrieu, take this issue very seriously, very personally, and
are anxious to see adoption work as a remedy to lots of other
very cruel solutions.
    Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have any comment, Mary?
    Senator Landrieu. No. I am just so happy that they are both
here. We can use all the help we can get.
    The Chairman. Well, Mrs. Smith, now that I have seen you, I
know why we call him lucky around here.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. While we are interrupting, I want to pay my
respects to a valued member of our Senate family. I do not have
a staff; I have a Senate family of young people. And her name
is Michelle DeKonty. And I want Michelle to stand up and say
hello to you, too.
    Ms. Dekonty. I am very honored to work on this issue with
Senator Helms. I am very much for adoption. And this issue has
enlightened me. And I have come in contact with some wonderful
people who really know their stuff, and they have been a great
deal of assistance to us. And I look forward to working with
you further.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Now, then, you brag about having somebody
from your home State, I can do the same.
    Senator Smith. Great.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Harding, welcome, from Hendersonville,
North Carolina.

  STATEMENT OF TOMILEE HARDING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN
 WORLD ADOPTION AND PRESIDENT, JOINT COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL
                      CHILDREN'S SERVICES

    Ms. Harding. Thank you, Senator Helms and Senator Landrieu.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
    My name is Tomilee Harding. I am the Founder and the
Executive Director of Christian World Adoption. We have offices
in Hendersonville, North Carolina, and Charleston, South
Carolina. I am also the President of the Joint Council on
International Children's Services. And this is the oldest and
largest affiliation of not-for-profit child welfare agencies in
the United States that deal with children in international
adoption. The Joint Council has 130-plus members. And I am not
speaking as a witness for the Joint Council, but they have
submitted their comments to the committee.
    Finally, and most proudly, I am the stepmother of two grown
sons, an adopted daughter from South America, who is 10, and my
husband and I are now in the process of adopting an 11-year-old
girl from Russia. And she has spent most of her life in a
Russian orphanage. So this matter is very dear to my heart, as
it is to most people who work in agencies, and of course the
people who care so much that are on this committee.
    As a witness, I believe very, very much that The Hague is
necessary. And this is not just my belief, it is also the
belief of The Hague Alliance. The Hague Alliance calls very
strongly for the ratification of The Hague by the U.S. The
Convention provides a framework for cooperation and safeguards
for children, birth families and adoptive families that we
think is very critical.
    The Hague Alliance includes most of the child welfare
organizations in the United States, the Joint Council on
International Children's Services, the Child Welfare League,
American Bar Association, National Association of Social
Workers, American Public Human Services Association, Catholic
Charities, Association of Jewish Family and Children's
Agencies, Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and
Children, National Council for Adoption, American Academy of
Adoption Attorneys, and North American Council on Adopted
Children. So if you wonder why our audience is full, there are
a lot of people that are very, very concerned about this issue
and care very much about what is happening.
    I really am here because I consider myself a trench
soldier. I have spent most of the last 10 years traveling
extensively overseas. I spent a lot of time meeting with
officials, training personnel and touring orphanages. This has
been exhausting emotionally, physically and spiritually. But I
feel it is critical in order to supervise the activities of our
associates overseas and to understand the needs of the
officials and the children there.
    In 1994, I headed a project to build an orphanage in north
Vietnam, and spent the next 4 years traveling back and forth to
hire and train care givers and to reunite children with their
birth families and to find adoptive homes if that was the
solution. I have travelled throughout Russia. Last June was my
14th trip, spending weeks at a time there. I have met with the
Russian Duma about their new law. And this September, Alla
Dzugaeva, the Chief Legal Specialist of the Federal Ministry of
Education, in Moscow, which oversees intercountry adoption,
expressed to me the Ministry's hope that the Russian Duma would
ratify The Hague Treaty soon.
    Currently, American adoptions, as you said, Senator, from
Russia are growing. It is the largest sending country. They
have established a Federal data bank to put their children in,
to fulfill the mandates of the central authority. Oftentimes,
there is confusion amongst countries about laws. I feel
strongly that there is a need to have a Federal body, like the
State Department--in fact, the State Department--to help
intercede with issues when adoptive parents have problems, when
the children have needs, and when the agencies do.
    Recently, on a trip--in fact, last week--one of the
protectors for children's rights from Irkutsk told Congressman
Taylor that the Russian area there is not doing adoptions to
Americans as much as the French because they have ratified The
Hague. Dr. Guo, the head of the China Center for Adoption, has
met with me on numerous occasions to discuss the U.S. and China
laws. They have increased their adoptions there and continue to
do so. Next year, they anticipate there will be 5,000 adoptions
from China. I have been told recently that China is seriously
considering ratifying The Hague and is studying it now.
    I tell you these details of my work just to tell you the
amount of contact that I have had with people overseas and that
I feel that most of these countries are looking, as our
Secretary said, to see the U.S. ratify The Hague, as we were
one of the main players at the beginning and were an original
signatory.
    As far as accreditation is concerned, I think it is an
important process to deliver high-quality adoption services.
The Joint Council, 130 agencies, has voluntarily agreed to go
along with this accreditation and feel that it is very
important.
    Thank you, Senator.
    The Chairman. I am proud of you.
    Ms. Harding. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Mr. McDermott.

  STATEMENT OF MARK T. MCDERMOTT, ESQ., LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN,
 ACCOMPANIED BY GOLDA ZIMMERMAN, TRUSTEE, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
                       ADOPTION ATTORNEYS

    Mr. McDermott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu and Senator Smith, I am Mark
McDermott, and I am Legislative Chair for the American Academy
of Adoption Attorneys. I am honored to have been asked to speak
to you about this important subject.
    With me today is Golda Zimmerman also, who is a Trustee of
the American Academy. And she is also the Attorney for New Life
Adoption Agency, a licensed nonprofit agency in the State of
New York that specializes in Chinese adoption.
    In the event that the committee has questions within her
area of expertise, she is also available.
    And I would also note that two other members of our Academy
are here in the audience today.
    The Chairman. Would you have them stand, please. And we
will not count that against your time.
    Mr. McDermott. This is Ms. Zimmerman.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Mr. McDermott. And Joel Tenenbaum is also here, and Irene
Steffas.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. McDermott. Implementing legislation for The Hague
Convention has been a long time coming. Countless children have
waited too long for the protections that it is going to
provide. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu, for your
sponsorship of this legislation.
    Our Academy is a nonprofit organization, consisting of
judges, attorneys and law professors from around the country
and Canada. Like many of our members, both Ms. Zimmerman and I
are adoptive parents. One of our organization's highest
priorities is to have this Convention ratified so it can be put
into effect.
    We were involved early on in the process, as a member of
the U.S. official delegation to The Hague, and thus we
participated in the drafting and negotiation of the Treaty.
Thereafter, we were asked by the Department of State to
formulate some criteria for the approval of attorneys and
others involved in the process. And we did that. And I have
with me today a copy of those criteria, which I would like to
submit at an appropriate time for the record.
    The Convention is much needed. We have all been exposed to
abuses in places like Romania. Only through a treaty can there
be any guarantee against these abuses in the future.
    One country must be assured that uniform provisions are in
place in the other countries so that abuses can be prevented.
These protections that exist in the Convention are enhanced by
your bill, S. 682, and I applaud that. The stakes are high, and
those involved in the process are very vulnerable.
    Some of the protections that you have put in your
legislation that I would like to focus on have to do with the
requirement that medical records on the children be translated
into English and that those records be provided to the adoptive
parents in advance of the adoption. Also, I applaud the
provision that requires preparation for adoptive families. The
speakers before me have noted the importance of that.
    And also very importantly, there is a provision that
requires that service providers be compensated on a fee-for-
service basis. This is important, because presently we are
plagued by situations where facilitators in other countries are
compensated on a contingent fee basis, which causes many
abuses, as evidenced by the rising tide of wrongful adoptions.
    With all these protections, the only thing that dampens our
enthusiasm for the legislation are some provisions which we
have some problems with, which I think can be rectified. They
fall into two areas, the first of which has to do with the
restrictions on children who leave the United States for
adoption by citizens in other countries.
    Those restrictions will have adverse effects, in our view,
in a number of areas--one of which has to do with the
supersession of State law. Adoption is an important subject
which has, to date, been left to the province of the individual
States. And if we make Federal law, telling them who they can
approve for adoption, that is a superceding of State law.
    Second, these restrictions will cause children to remain
longer in nonpermanent situations, such as foster care. That is
not good social policy and it hurts children. So I am hoping we
can rectify that.
    Third, it will precipitate retaliation by other countries
against our citizens who are trying to adopt children from
those countries.
    The next area of concern has to do with the exclusion of
service providers for intercountry adoption service other than
accredited agencies. This, I understand, was an oversight--I
have been told is an oversight in the drafting process, because
the Treaty itself specifically provides for bodies and other
persons, other than accredited agencies, to be approved for the
provision of intercountry adoption services.
    In closing, I would like to say that we are grateful for
your leadership, Mr. Chairman and Senator Landrieu. We applaud
the protections that you have put in S. 682. They enhance the
Treaty. And with the exceptions that I have mentioned, we urge
you to pass this important and historic legislation.
    [The prepared statement and information of Mr. McDermott
follows:]

    Prepared Statement of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Mark
McDermott. I am the Legislative Chairman for the American Academy of
Adoption Attorneys. I am honored to have been asked to speak to you on
behalf of the Academy. Implementing legislation for the Hague
Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of
Intercountry Adoption has been a long time coming. Countless children
have waited too long for the protections the Convention will afford.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this historic Convention
and to the legislation needed to carry it out.
    The Academy is a non-profit association of attorneys, judges, and
law school professors from around the country and Canada. The mission
of the Academy is to encourage the study and improvement of adoption
law and practice standards. Our members represent adoptive parents,
birth parents, adoption agencies and others involved in adoptions,
including intercountry adoptions. Like many of the members of the
Academy, I am an adoptive parent. Thus, I have a personal interest in
adoption issues. One of the Academy's highest priorities is to do what
we can to encourage and assist in the ratification of the Convention
and in the passage of legislation to bring it into successful operation
in the United States.
    The Academy has been involved in the Hague Convention since the
early stages. We participated in the drafting of the Convention in our
capacity as a member of the official United States delegation in 1992.
We also participated in the negotiations which led to adoption of the
Convention on May 29, 1993. Thereafter, the United States Department of
State asked the Academy to draft standards for the approval of
individual attorneys as intercountry adoption service providers under
the Convention. I have with me a copy of the approval standards drafted
by the Academy which I would like to submit for the record.

    [The information referred to by Mr. McDermott follows his prepared
statement.]

    Obviously, the Academy feels strongly that there is a need for the
Convention and the protections it provides. We have all been exposed to
the reports of adoption abuses in Romania and some other countries.
These abuses were the impetus for the drafting of the Convention. There
is no guarantee that the increased vigilance caused by the scandals and
the additional protections provided by new laws in individual countries
will prevent abuses in the future. Only through a treaty like this
Convention can one country be assured that uniform protections are in
place in other countries.
    The centerpiece of the protections provided by the Convention is a
prohibition against agencies or others providing intercountry adoption
services unless, in the case of agencies, they have been accredited or,
in the case of others like attorneys, they have been approved. Due to
what has been described as a drafting error which will be corrected, S.
682 has no provision for the approval of any intercountry service
providers other than non-profit agencies. I will return to this problem
later in our statement.
    The need for the type of protections and the oversight provided by
S. 682 is great. Most of the agencies and most of the individuals who
currently provide intercountry adoption services are competent and
ethical. Like any other area of human endeavor, however, there are some
who are not competent or not ethical. Since adoptions most often
involve young children, the risks are great and the stakes are high.
The adoption of a child is the most important legal transaction in
which a person can engage. It is a lifelong relationship and it forever
changes the life of those involved.
    Adoptive parents who pursue intercountry adoption are vulnerable.
They have often gone through years of agonizing and expensive efforts
to succeed in having a biologic child. They have been exposed to
reports of how difficult it is to adopt. The situation causes
prospective adoptive parents to become desperate. Those unethical
adoption service providers who would seek to take advantage of these
people may find easy victims. Thus, protections are essential.
    A major area of concern involves the use of facilitators. As the
number of children available for adoption in foreign countries
increases, more and more individuals are forming small agencies to
facilitate these placements. Unfortunately, their resources are not
great enough to adequately staff their foreign counterparts. Therefore,
the agencies use facilitators who are not trained in adoption, but
rather are selected solely to obtain children. It is not uncommon for
agencies to select business men or women who have ``connections'' to
get children out of orphanages. They have no experience or background
in adoption, medical or social issues. These facilitators are relied
upon to provide the medical information for the United States agencies.
In most situations, the facilitators are paid only if the adoption is
completed. By virtue of the way in which they are compensated, the
facilitators have a built-in incentive to divulge only the positive
medical information, and to hide or change the negative aspects of the
medical records, to insure that the adoption is completed. This happens
more and more, as evidenced by. the rising tide of wrongful adoption
litigation in this country. More control over foreign facilitators is
needed with any legislation proposed for foreign placements.
    S. 682 contains a provision which would improve intercountry
adoption practice in this area. Section 203(b)(1)(A) (iii) requires
agencies to employ personnel only on a fee-for-service basis rather
than on a contingent-arrangement basis. This is a good provision but it
could be made stronger. Language should be added to make it clear that
the restriction also applies to facilitators and others employed to
perform services in the foreign country.
    An example of the risks faced by adoptive parents involved in
intercountry adoption is provided by the following case. Adoptive
parents in the United States attempted to adopt a child from Estonia
through an agency in Maryland. The Maryland agency used a facilitator
in Estonia who was described as a ``business man.'' He was selected
solely because he knew the right individuals who could obtain children
from an orphanage. This facilitator, unknown to the adoptive parents,
had the adoption finalized in Estonia before the adoptive parents
arrived. When the adoptive parents arrived in Estonia, not only did
they discover that the child that had been selected for them was
totally paralyzed from the waist down, but that the adoption had been
finalized in their absence and without their knowledge. They were
confronted with either attempting to void the adoption through the
Estonian courts, or to take home with them a special needs child whom
they could not parent. The adoptive parents hired an attorney in
Estonia who successfully overturned the adoption based upon fraud, but
only at great financial and psychological cost.
    We applaud provisions in S. 682 which would help combat the risks
presented by this case example. The requirement in Section
203(b)(1)(A)(i) that adoptive parents be provided medical records
translated into English before the adoption would make adoptive parents
better able to assess medical risks. The provision would be even better
if it were amended to require that the adoptive parents also be given a
copy of the original medical records in the language of the child's
country of origin. This would enable the adoptive parents to verify the
accuracy of the translation. The requirement in Section 203
(b)(1)(A)(ii) that adoptive parents be provided at least six weeks of
counseling and guidance may serve to prevent adoption disruption. At
the very least, this requirement will make adoptive parents better able
to function in their new role as parents in a multi-cultural family.
    While S. 682 would do much to improve intercountry adoption, it has
some undesirable provisions. A number of these relate to provisions
applicable to children leaving the United States for adoption by
citizens of other countries. We fear that the ramifications of the
restrictions on outgoing children in Section 303 have not been
considered. One of the most significant problems with these
restrictions is that they supercede state law in an area which has
always been free from Federal encroachment.
    When a child from the United States is adopted by an adoptive
parent from another country, the adoption is virtually always granted
by the courts of, and pursuant to the laws of, the state of the child's
origin. Likewise, the adoption of a child from another country by
citizens of the United States will be controlled by the law of the
child's country of origin. Hence, restrictions in Section 303, like the
restriction on who is qualified to adopt United States' children, would
serve to abrogate the law of any state which does not happen to have
laws which contain restrictions matching those in Section 303.
    The restrictions in Section 303 also cause other concerns. Section
303 would require children to stay longer in non-permanent situations
like foster care while efforts are made to find United States citizens
to adopt them instead of adoptive parents from other countries. This is
not good social policy since it harms children. Congress has made great
strides recently to promote the early placement of children in
permanent homes. The delays mandated by Section 303 would be a step
backwards.
    It is only logical to assume that, if the United States imposes
restrictions like those in Section 303 on prospective adoptive parents
from other countries, then other countries will retaliate by imposing
similar restrictions on prospective adoptive parents from the United
States. This is not compatible with the cooperative spirit envisioned
by the Convention and it will harm the interests of prospective
adoptive parents and prospective adoptees who are citizens of the
United States.
    As mentioned earlier, we are very concerned about the failure of S.
682 to provide for the approval of any intercountry service providers
other than non-profit agencies. Because of the Academy's involvement in
the drafting of the Convention, we are aware of the deliberations which
led to the Convention's language on this point. The Convention
specifically provides for two categories of service providers. In
accordance with Article 22(1) of the Convention, the first category
consists of agencies which go through an accreditation process. Article
22(2) of the Convention describes a second category of authorized
service providers. That category consists of bodies or persons other
than agencies accredited under the Convention. These others would
include individuals such as attorneys. As far as attorneys are
concerned, we envision an approval process using criteria like the ones
drafted by the Academy. \1\ It is critical that the pool of service
providers from which adoptive parents must choose not be too small.
There should be no artificial restrictions on who is eligible to be a
service provider. Restrictions should only relate in a meaningful way
to the qualifications of the provider. It is essential that this aspect
of S. 682 be changed before the legislation proceeds further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Academy's criteria were drafted before S. 682 was
introduced and, therefore, do not include some of the standards set out
in S. 682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are grateful for your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in moving the
United States toward ratification of the Convention. We also applaud
the provisions of S. 682 which would provide protections to those whose
families are affected by intercountry adoption. Subject to the changes
we have suggested, we urge this committee to pass this historic and
much needed legislation.
                                 ______

                          THE HAGUE CONVENTION

     Criteria for Recognition as an Attorney Qualified To Conduct
     Intercountry Adoptions Under the Terms of the Hague Convention

1. ORGANIZATION

    1.A. The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (the Recommending
Authority, or its designee, is the entity which is designated by the
Central Authority to recommend for approval or disapproval attorneys at
law to practice in the area of intercountry adoptions, as that term Is
defined in the Hague Convention, and as set forth herein.

    1.B. The Recommending Authority is the designated authority to
review, process and recommend or not recommend attorneys to the Central
Authority. The Central Authority retains the ultimate jurisdiction to
approve or disapprove attorneys for recommendation hereunder.

    1.C. Recommendation or disapproval will be consistent with the
regulations promulgated by the Central Authority in compliance with the
terms of the Convention.

    1.D. Definitions.

            i. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined
        herein, shall have the definitions ascribed in the Convention.

            ii. The ``Hague Convention'' and the ``Convention,'' as
        those terms are used herein, is known in full as THE HAGUE
        CONVENTION OF MAY 29, 1993, ON THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND
        COOPERATION IN RESPECT OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION, as may be
        amended from time to time (the ``Convention'').

            iii. The Central Authority is the Unites States Department
        of State, or its designee.

2. APPLICATION

    These Criteria shall apply only to attorneys involved in placement
of children for adoption between Member States to the Convention, where
the intercountry adoption is not conducted under the supervision of
certified adoption agency.

3. TERM OF CERTIFICATION

    3.A. Recommendation of attorneys under the Convention shall be for
a period of three (3) years, commencing on the date on which
certification is granted by the Central Authority. Periods of extension
of certification shall also be for three (3) years.

4. APPLICATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

    4.A. Form and Content.

    Applications shall be typewritten on forms provided by the
Recommending Authority. All applications and the information contained
therein shall be sworn to by the applicant as being true and complete.
All applications shall become the property of the Recommending
Authority.

    4.B. Criteria For Recommendation.

            i. Education and/or Experience.

            Each applicant shall have completed the following
        requirements:

                    1. Verified attendance at and completion of
                appropriate courses in law school relating to adoption
                and/or immigration law; and/or

                    2. Verified attendance at and completion of
                appropriate seminars, recognized by the Recommending
                Authority and/or the Central Authority, in the areas of
                adoption am for immigration law; and/or

                    3. Authored publication(s) in the areas of adoption
                and/or immigration law; and/or

                    4. Taught classes and/or led seminars in the areas
                of adoption and/or immigration law; and/or

                    5. Demonstrated broad experience in the field of
                adoptions, by evidence of his or her involvement in:

                            a. adoption finalizations (domestic or
                        international);

                            b. intercountry adoptions involving a
                        licensed agency; or

                            c. intercountry adoptions not involving a
                        licensed agency; and/or

                    6. Other factors demonstrating proficiency in
                intercountry adoptions.

            ii. Licensed to Practice/Good Standing.

            Each applicant shall be an attorney at law, in good
        standing, licensed to practice in every state/territory in
        which said applicant practices law. Each applicant shall
        provide documentation from the appropriate licensing body in
        every such state/territory attesting to his or her good
        standing.

            iii. Ethical Considerations.

            Each applicant shall represent and warrant that he or she
        has fully complied with the Ethical Rules, Disciplinary Rules,
        Ethical Canons, and other rules of professional and ethical
        conduct in effect in each state in which the applicant
        practices law or conducts business for other purposes, and
        shall maintain the highest standards of professional and
        ethical conduct. The applicant, and the applicant's law
        practice, shall be reputed and continue to be of the highest
        standards of ethics, competence and professionalism, and
        complies with the Code of Ethics, which is incorporated into
        these Criteria. An applicant shall not have engaged in
        activities which might tend to bring discredit upon the
        profession of law, upon the Central Authority or the
        Recommending Authority.

            iv. Record of Professional Ethics and Competence.

            Each applicant hereunder shall submit detailed information
        of the following, including the resolution thereof:

                    1. All instances of professional sanction or
                discipline involving the applicant during the course of
                his or her legal practice;

                    2. All disciplinary and/or professional complaints
                currently pending against the applicant;

                    3. All malpractice claims made against the
                applicant, or against the applicant's firm that
                resulted in a lawsuit being filed, settlement being
                paid, or the appointment of an attorney by the
                applicant's malpractice insurance carrier to defend the
                applicant or the applicant's firm; and

                    4. Criminal charges, spousal abuse, and/or child
                maltreatment and/or indicated or founded child abuse
                charges filed against the applicant while the applicant
                is or was a member of any bar (the applicant shall
                submit an original or certified copy of the results of
                an inquiry made with all relevant bodies in the
                applicant's home state/territory concerning said child
                abuse and maltreatment charges).

            v. Conformity With State and Federal Laws, Rules and
        Regulations.

            The applicant shall at all times have conducted his or her
        legal and adoption practice in full compliance with all laws,
        rules and regulations which apply to such practitioner,
        including specifically at ethical obligations and requirements
        in each of the jurisdictions in which the Applicant is
        licensed.

            vi. Interview.

            Each applicant shall complete a personal interview, at a
        time and place to be set by the Recommending Authority, the
        subject of which shall include, but not be limited to, the
        substantive knowledge of the applicant with regard to adoption
        in general and the intercountry adoption process in particular.

            vii. Additional Documentation.

            Each applicant shall submit a written statement describing
        his or her practice and procedures as they relate to
        intercountry adoption. The statement shall include, but not
        necessarily be limited to, the following areas:

                    1. A sample of the written agreement which the
                attorney intends to employ between the applicant and
                his or her clients (the prospective adoptive parents or
                birth parents), setting forth all of the understandings
                between the attorney and the client, which agreement
                shall include the following:

                            a. A statement of the client's rights and
                        responsibilities;

                            b. An explicit submission on the part of
                        the applicant to the jurisdiction of the
                        Central Authority and compliance with the
                        Convention, and notice to the client that the
                        client may file any complaints against the
                        applicant with the Central Authority;

                            c. A clear itemized statement of estimated
                        and/or actual expenses to be incurred by the
                        client in connection with the adoption,
                        including legal fees and disbursements;

                            d. A statement certifying that the
                        applicant is in good standing with the
                        applicable bar association(s) and state
                        licensing board(s);

                            e. A statement certifying that the
                        applicant has applied for certification by the
                        Central Authority;

                            f. An explanation of the applicant's system
                        for providing pre- and post-adoption services
                        to the client and the adoptive child; and

                            g. A statement detailing whether the
                        applicant will derive a fee, other
                        consideration or thing of value in connection
                        with the adoption from any source other than,
                        or in addition to, the client.

                    2. A statement detailing of the applicant's
                procedures to deal with the disruption of an adoption
                placement (both before and after the physical placement
                actually occurs), whether occurring in the country of
                origin or in the country where the adoptive parents
                reside.

                    3. A statement detailing the policies and
                procedures for disclosure by the attorney to the client
                of all known medical and social history of the adoptive
                child (if the client is the adoptive parent) and of any
                background information concerning the adoptive parents
                (if the client is the biological parent and such
                disclosure is permitted by all applicable laws and
                rules and is authorized by the adoptive parent).

                    4. Policies and procedures for financial accounting
                and record keeping, including an escrow account for
                client retainers, both for fees and costs advanced,
                prompt itemization by the applicant to the client of
                all costs and fees incurred, and prompt return to the
                client of all funds to which the client is then
                entitled.

                    5. Policies and procedures for retaining the
                records relating to intercountry adoptions in
                accordance with state law.

            viii. Other Memberships.

            Each applicant shall disclose the names of the professional
        organizations of which the applicant is a member.

            ix. References.

            Each applicant shall provide three (3) letters of reference
        from persons with whom the applicant does not have a familial,
        partnership or other business relationship, attesting to the
        applicant's good moral character and fitness, and the
        applicant's expertise in the area of domestic and/or
        intercountry adoption.

            x. Malpractice Insurance.

            Each applicant shall provide evidence that the applicant is
        covered by professional malpractice insurance, provided by a
        recognized professional malpractice insurance carrier, with
        coverage that includes the applicant's role as an intercountry
        adoption attorney, in an amount of not less than $250,000 per
        incident or occurrence.

            xi. Bankruptcy.

            Each applicant shall certify that he/she has not petitioned
        for, been declared or been adjudicated a bankrupt within five
        years prior to the date of application.

            xii. Release of Information/Indemnification.

            1. Each applicant shall execute a general authorization to
        obtain information about the applicant.

            2. Each applicant shall certify that he/she understands
        that the application contains an agreement indemnifying the
        Central Authority and the Recommending Authority from any
        claims arising from the certification process or otherwise.

            xiii. Academy Membership.

            An applicant's present or past membership in the American
        Academy of Adoption Attorneys shall not be a criterion for
        recommendation hereunder.

    4.C. Review of Application.

            i. The Recommending Authority or its designee shall review
        each application and submit its recommendation to the Central
        Authority.

            ii. Each application shall be given a preliminary
        procedural review prior to substantive review.

            iii. Applications shall he complete when submitted.
        Incomplete applications shall be returned to the applicant.

            iv. Incomplete applications which are returned shall be
        accompanied by a written explanation of the deficiency.

            v. An application complete on its face shall be
        substantively reviewed.

            vi. The applicant shall receive written notification of the
        action of the Recommending Authority. In the event of the
        disapproval of the application, the written notification shall
        state the reasons that approval was not recommended, and shall
        be sent by registered mail, return receipt requested.

            vii. If approval is not recommended, the applicant shall
        have thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to submit a
        written request for re-evaluation. Said re-evaluation shall be
        limited to supplementation, clarification or correction of
        erroneous or incomplete information upon which the Recommending
        Authority is believed to have relied in reaching its
        determination. If the decision is not changed, the applicant
        may not again apply for recommendation for a period of one (1)
        year from the date of the most recent disapproval.

    4.D. Application Fees.

            A non-refundable application fee as determined by the
        Recommending Authority shall accompany each application
        submitted.

5. EXTENSION OF RECOMMENDATION

    5.A. An Approved Attorney may apply for an extension of his or her
recommendation not earlier than six (6) months prior to the expiration
of their recommendation term, according to the regulations set forth
herein.

    5.B. Applications for Extension of Recommendation.

            Applications shall be typewritten on forms provided by the
        Recommending Authority. All applications and the information
        contained therein shall be sworn to by the applicant as being
        true and complete.

    5.C. Criteria For Extension of Certification.

            i. During their most recent approval term, approved
        attorney seeking extension of his or her certification shall
        have completed the following requirements:

                Continuing Legal Education.

                    1. Verified attendance at, and completion of,
                courses or seminars, recognized by the Recommending
                Authority and/or the Central Authority, in the areas of
                adoption and/or immigration law.

                    2. Authored publication(s) in the areas of adoption
                and/or immigration law; and/or

                    3. Taught classes and/or led seminars in the areas
                of adoption and/or immigration law; and/or

                    4. Demonstrated broad experience in the field of
                adoptions, by evidence of his or her involvement in:

                            a. adoption finalizations (domestic or
                        international);

                            b. intercountry adoptions involving a
                        licensed agency; or

                            c. intercountry adoptions not involving a
                        licensed agency; and/or

                    5. Other factors demonstrating proficiency in
                intercountry adoptions.

            ii. Verification of Other Matters.

            Each approved attorney shall verify that he or she
        continues to be an attorney at law, in good standing, licensed
        to practice in his or her state/territory, that there have been
        no instances of professional sanction or discipline, claims of
        malpractice, criminal, spousal abuse, maltreatment and/or
        indicated or founded child abuse, charges involving the
        approved attorney during the course of his or her legal
        practice and other business activities since the time of the
        original application for certification (the approved attorney
        shall submit an original or certified copy of the result of an
        inquiry made with all relevant bodies in the applicant's home
        state/territory concerning reports of child maltreatment and/or
        abuse in which the approved attorney has been an indicated
        party).

            iii. Additional Documentation.

            Each approved attorney shall submit his or her current
        written documentation as required under Section 4.B.vii.
        hereof.

            iv. Malpractice Insurance.

            Each approved attorney shall provide evidence that the
        applicant continues to be covered by professional at
        malpractice insurance as required under Section 4.B.x. hereof.

            v. Bankruptcy.

            Each approved attorney shall provide evidence as required
        under Section 4.B.xi. hereof.

            vi. Licensed to Practice/Good Standing.

            Each approved attorney shall continue be an attorney at
        law, in good standing, licensed to practice in every state/
        territory in which said applicant practices law, and shall
        provide documentation from the appropriate licensing body in
        every such state/territory attesting to his or her good
        standing status.

            vii. Ethical Consideration.

            The approved attorney, and the approved attorney's law
        practice, shall be reputed and continue to be of the highest
        standards of ethics, competence and professionalism, and
        complies with the code of Ethics, which is incorporated into
        these Criteria. An approved attorney shall not have engaged in
        activities which might tend to bring discredit upon the
        profession of law, upon the Central Authority or the
        Recommending Authority.

            viii. Other Memberships.

            Each approved attorney shall disclose the names of the
        professional organizations of which the applicant is then a
        member.

            ix. Release of Information/Indemnification..

            a. Each approved attorney shall execute an authorization
        for release of information as required under Section 4.B.xii.
        hereof.

            b. Each approved attorney shall certify that he/she
        releases and indemnifies the Central Authority and the
        Recommending Authority from any claims arising from the
        certification process or otherwise.

            x. Other Verification.

            The Recommending Authority and/or the Central Authority may
        request any other verification, substantiation or information
        which it deems reasonably necessary to review the application
        for continued certification of the approved attorney.

    5.E. Application Fees.

            i. A non-refundable application fee as determined by the
        Recommending Authority shall accompany each application for
        extension of certification submitted.

            ii. In the event that an application for extension of
        recommendation is received less than three months prior to the
        expiration of the recommendation term, the attorney assumes the
        risk that the extension may not be received prior to the
        expiration of the recommendation term. In that event, the
        attorney may be precluded from participating in intercountry
        adoptions until his or her recommendation is reinstated.

    5.F. Denial of Application for Extension.

            If extension of approval is not recommended, the applicant
        shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to
        submit a written request for re-evaluation. Said re-evaluation
        shall be limited to supplementation, clarification or
        correction of erroneous or incomplete information upon which
        the recommending Authority is believed to have relied in
        reaching its determination. If the decision is not changed, the
        applicant may not again apply for recommendation for a period
        of one (1) year from the date of the most recent disapproval.

    5.G. Conformity with State and Federal Laws, Rules and Regulations.

            The approved attorney shall represent and warrant that he
        or she has conducted his or her legal and adoption practice, at
        all times, in full compliance with all laws, rules and
        regulations, and Ethical Rules, Disciplinary Rules, Ethical
        Canons which apply to such practitioner, including specifically
        all ethical obligations and requirements.

6. REVOCATION OF RECOMMENDATION

    6.A. The Recommending Authority may recommend that a recommendation
be revoked if it is determined after a hearing, held on notice of not
less than ten (10) days to the attorney, that:

            i. The attorney was ineligible to receive certification,
        either at the time of the original certification or at the time
        of any extension thereof;

            ii. The recommendation was issued to the attorney based
        upon false or materially incorrect representations,
        misstatements or omissions made by the attorney;

            iii. The approved attorney failed to abide by all the rules
        and regulations governing the attorney imposed by the
        Convention and/or the Central Authority, and all applicable
        local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations imposed
        upon attorneys and/or adoption professionals, including any
        requirements for continuing education and proficiency;

            iv. The attorney failed to pay any fee or charge required
        hereunder;

            v. The attorney has been the subject to professional
        sanction or discipline, claims of malpractice, criminal,
        maltreatment and/or indicated or founded child abuse charges
        involving the approved attorney during the course of his or her
        legal practice since the time of the original application for
        certification; or

            vi. The attorney no longer meets the qualifications
        established by the Central Authority for such recommendation.

7. NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS

    7.A. The Recommending Authority shall inform the appropriate state
and local authorities of any material breach by the attorney of the
ethical and practice requirements set forth herein.

8. APPEALS

    8.A. In the event that the Recommending Authority shall not
recommend an applicant for status as an approved attorney, or shall
deny an approved attorney an extension of his or her approval term, the
individual so denied may request a review of the determination of the
Recommending Authority by the Board of Directors of the American
Academy of Adoption Attorneys. The request for said review shall be
made in writing not more than thirty days from the date of the postmark
of the notice informing the applicant of the determination of the
Recommending Authority. The request for review shall be submitted with
all relevant attachments and exhibits; fifteen complete copies shall be
submitted. The request shall be accompanied by the filing fee then
established by the Recommending Authority. The individual requesting
said review shall be responsible for all costs and expenses which he or
she may incur in connection with said review. The decisions of the
Board of Directors of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys and
the Central Authority shall be final.

                             CODE OF ETHICS

    In order to further the cause of the ethical intercountry
adoptions, each applicant and Approved Attorney agrees to comply will
the this Code of Ethics:

            1. An Approved Attorney shall be duly licensed to practice
        law in each state in which the Approved Attorney maintains a
        law office, shall fully comply with the Ethical Rules,
        Disciplinary Rules, Ethical Canons, or other rules of
        professional and ethical conduct in effect in each state in
        which the approved Attorney maintains an office, and shall
        maintain the highest standards of professional and ethical
        conduct. An Approved Attorney shall not engage in activities
        which bring discredit upon the profession of law, the Central
        Authority or the Recommending Authority.

            2. An Approved Attorney shall assure that the Approved
        Attorney's clients are aware of their legal rights and
        obligations.

            3. An Approved Attorney may inform a client as to the
        Approved Attorney's understanding of the laws of a foreign
        state in which the Approved Attorney is not licensed, provided
        that the Approved Attorney disclosed that the Approved Attorney
        is not licensed to practice in that jurisdiction,

            4. An Approved Attorney shall not purport to represent both
        the prospective adopting parent(s) and one or both birth
        parents. Where practicable and where required by state law, the
        Approved Attorney shall encourage independent representation of
        all parties to the adoption.

            5. An Approved Attorney shall actively discourage adoption
        fraud and misrepresentation and shall not engage in such
        conduct, and shall take all reasonable measures not
        inconsistent with the confidentiality of the attorney/client
        relationship to prevent adoption fraud or misrepresentation,
        withdrawing from representation where necessary to avoid
        participation in any such conduct.

            6. An Approved Attorney shall assure that clients to an
        adoption are aware of any laws which govern permissible
        financial assistance to a birth parents.

            7. An Approved Attorney shall not assist or cooperate in
        any adoption in which the Approved Attorney knows that the
        birth parent or parents are being paid or given anything of
        value to induce the adoption placement, or for the consent or
        relinquishment for adoption.

            8. An Approved Attorney shall not enter into an agreement
        for, charge, or collect an illegal or unconscionable fee. Fees
        shall be commensurate with the services that have been provided
        by the Approved Attorney. An Approved Attorney shall not,
        directly or indirectly, charge a finder's fee for locating a
        birth parent or adoptive child. In determining whether a fee is
        unconscionable, the factors to be considered shall include but
        not be limited to, the following:

                    (a) The amount of the fee in proportion to the
                value of the services performed;

                    (b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions
                involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal
                services properly;

                    (c) The time limitations imposed by the client or
                by the circumstances;

                    (d) The time and labor required; and

                    (e) The experience, reputation and ability of the
                Approved Attorney performing the services.

            9. An Approved Attorney shall not possess a financial stake
        in the success of any adoption in which the Approved Attorney
        is retained as counsel for any party. An Approved Attorney
        shall be considered to have a financial stake in an adoption if
        the Approved Attorney enters into a fee agreement by which the
        Approved Attorney is to receive a greater fee for a successful
        adoption than is warranted based upon the reasonable value of
        the services performed by the Approved Attorney, or if the
        Approved Attorney is contractually entitled to a lesser fee
        than the reasonable value of the services performed by the
        Approved Attorney if the attempted adoption is unsuccessful.
        The Approved Attorney shall not derive compensation or other
        consideration in connection with the adoption from any source
        other than or in addition to his or her client, or the party
        responsible for the payment of the legal fees.

            10. An Approved Attorney shall disburse client trust funds
        only for those purposes specifically authorized by the client,
        and the Approved Attorney shall not exercise independent
        judgment or discretion over trust fund or escrow account
        disbursement unless the client has specifically authorized the
        exercise and scope of such discretion. An Approved Attorney
        shall promptly account for all client funds held by the
        Approved Attorney upon request by the client, and shall
        promptly reimburse to the client all client funds due to the
        client upon reasonable request by the client, as authorized by
        the retainer agreement between the Approved Attorney and the
        client, or upon completion of the matter for which the Approved
        Attorney has been retained.

            11. An Approved Attorney shall not make false or misleading
        claims in advertisements or promotional materials.

            12. An Approved Attorney shall not enter into any agreement
        with any person which would have the effect of restricting the
        Approved Attorney's ability to exercise independent
        professional judgment on behalf of the Approved Attorney's
        clients.

            13. An Approved Attorney may, when appropriate and/or when
        requested by a client, refer parties to competent and
        professional medical providers, legal counsel, psychological
        counselors, or adoption agencies. An Approved Attorney shall
        avoid any appearance of impropriety and shall advise the
        parties of any familial or professional relationship between
        the Approved Attorney and any other professional to whom the
        Approved Attorney may refer a party, including a doctor,
        hospital, counselor or birthing coach. An Approved Attorney
        shall receive no referral fee or thing of value from any
        professional, organization or counselor to whom a party may be
        referred by a Approved Attorney.

            14. An Approved Attorney shall retain adoption-related
        records in accordance with state law.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Cox.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN SOON-KEUM COX, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY
  AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, HOLT INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

    Ms. Cox. Thank you. Good morning.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for taking the time to
support this important legislation and these efforts, and
Senator Landrieu. And also Senator Smith has a reputation in
Oregon for being very knowledgeable about adoption, so I am
especially pleased that he serves on this committee.
    My name is Susan Soon-Keum Cox. I am from Eugene, Oregon.
And I have been adoption professional for over 20 years. There
have been worldwide more than 200,000 children who have found
their families through intercountry adoption. I was number 167.
And it is in that capacity as an international adoptee that I
testify today.
    I think it is important to acknowledge that intercountry
adoption should never be the first line of defense, as Senator
Landrieu was saying this morning, there really is an important
priority. However, when a child will not have a family except
for intercountry adoption, it is not only appropriate, it is
also preferable to life in an orphanage or institution.
    We have heard a lot today about the importance of training
and preparation. And I think that it is important to
acknowledge that children who come to their families for
adoption deserve the very best families that are possible to
help them to achieve all that they can as appropriate citizens.
I think that intercountry adoption provides the lifelong
response in the individual lives of children.
    And so the mandate for agencies and individuals who will be
working with children and families in intercountry adoption,
they must be committed to finding families for children rather
than children for families. I think that is an important
distinction that needs to be made. It must be a priority to
respect not only the birth countries, but also to respect the
dignity of the child.
    A nation's decision as a matter of policy to permit
intercountry adoption is a complex and complicated one. And it
is important that we do not circumvent the sending country's
adoption system or take shortcuts around their requirements.
    As the acceptance of international adoption has grown, so
has the opportunities for exploitation and abuse. It is
unfortunate, but it is also true. And that is why the standards
and a process of accreditation is essential. It really provides
safeguards for practice which protects families and children,
and it also protects the institution of adoption.
    There have been more than 140,000 children adopted in the
U.S. and Europe from Korea. And while it may have been
considered a social experiment in the 1950's, I think that we
certainly have been able to prove, two generations of us who
are now adults, that we grew up and we have done, for the most
part, just fine. Thank you very much.
    But there are issues that are unique to intercountry
adoption. And certainly the most obvious one is that generally
we grow up a different race than the parents who are raising
us. We are called upon to validate the realness of our
adoption, and sometimes by perfect strangers.
    I have had the opportunity to work with hundreds of
adoptees through heritage camps and other programs for
international adoptees. I do not know a single adoptee who has
not been asked, ``Who are your real mom and dad?''
    Three weeks ago, there was an international gathering of
the first generation of Korean adoptees here in Washington,
D.C. Over 300 of us from seven European countries and the
United States came together to celebrate our commonality, our
common experience of international adoption. And there have
been some lessons learned along the way. There are some things
that we have to say, as you have talked about, consulting with
the adoption community and the experts and so on. I really urge
you to also acknowledge that we have grown up.
    I participated at The Hague in 1993. And in this forum of
representatives from 66 countries, I was the only adoptee in
the room. And I felt an enormous responsibility to speak up and
to be able to participate on behalf of the adoptees who have
been adopted, but the hundreds of thousands of children who
still require adoption to have a family. We are firmly
committed to having access to our records and the opportunity
to be able to know about those situations that were at the
beginnings of our life that are a lifelong process. So I urge
you to really consider that application.
    One of the things also that has changed as adoption has
expanded is that single families are now able to adopt and it
is that there are so many children orphanages around the world.
We need every appropriate family that can be found for those
children, and I really see that has been a wonderful thing for
children as we go into the future.
    I would like to again thank the committee and all of the
efforts on behalf of adoption. And I look very much forward to
working with other adoptees to help move this process forward.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Mary, I seldom have ever heard five witnesses in a row
say so much in so little time.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Landrieu. A very good job.
    The Chairman. And I am grateful and I am amazed. Suppose we
have, including you, Senator Smith, if you have time, 7 minutes
per Senator to question. And I want this lady to ask the first
questions. Ms. Mary.
    Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Federici, we are all very familiar with your work and,
in your personal experience, have adopted I think four children
from Romania and have done a beautiful job. I have had the
chance to meet your family, and it was quite a thrill.
    When you cited the 1,500 cases, were these, do you think,
self-selecting cases--in other words, did people who were
having problems seek you and your colleagues out? Is your
testimony, this morning, that this sample is representative of
all of the international adoptions?
    Dr. Federici. Of course, the 1,500 that sought me out, it
usually was 3 or 4 years post-adoption, when they entered
school age, had some difficulties. But I think my sample is a
representation of a larger sample.
    And again, having worked with up to 5,000 and 6,000
different families and different networks, I think what we are
seeing is a representation that many, the majority of children,
who have spent longer periods of time in institutional settings
do in fact have longer-term issues that require much more
intensive interventions than just the wait and see or that they
will recover from minor delays. So there are quite a few in my
sample that really have long-term issues that again, Senator,
are representative of probably the more global population.
    Senator Landrieu. Because I think this issue is important,
and I know you are a strong advocate of international adoption.
I am sure your intent is not to frighten people. Rather, you
want to see the barriers come down and medical records improved
so that there are real opportunities for all children to find
homes. We both want to make it realistic--I guess the
expectations more realistic.
    But the fact that there have been thousands and thousands
of children that have been placed in very positive outcomes, I
think the issue is just to make sure that parents are prepared.
Part of this legislation outlines a system where parents can be
more prepared and there can be more support services to deal
with problems. We must recognize that there are some real
serious and negative effects of institutionalization that
perhaps we have not recognized.
    Let me ask Ms. Holtan, though, not so much a question but
something that I picked up that you may want to clarify. In
your comments, you said that you had come across or thought
that people adopting do not necessarily have the best
motivations. I am not sure if that was the word that you
intended to use. I think you might have meant they were not as
well prepared as they should have been. Were you questioning
the motivations of people in adoption?
    Ms. Holtan. No. I was questioning some of the motivations
of people who are providing adoption services.
    The Chairman. Services. OK. Not the families?
    Ms. Holtan. No. After all the years of working with
families, they are extraordinarily wonderful people, by and
large. I just want them to have all the facts before they make
what should be a lifelong decision, so that we do not get calls
anymore, asking us to replace children from Eastern Europe.
    Senator Landrieu. And along those lines, Mr. Chairman, I
wanted to point out for the record, I think Ms. Holtan
testified there were 82 cases of people calling in to her
agency over a 5-year period. Now there would have been about
100,000 children adopted each year in that timeframe, 15,000 of
which would have been international. So over a period of 5
years, about 75,000 children were adopted. It is important to
note, and we want to be sensitive to it, 82 out of 75,000
represents less than one-hundredth of 1 percent.
    Ms. Holtan. Yes.
    Senator Landrieu. Now, some other agencies would have
received other calls. But the vast majority of international
adoptions are actually working. I mean despite the fact that
there is not a terrific system in place, there are many
instances where these adoptions are working. We still need to
notice these trend lines. The fact that the number of
disruptions is going up should cause us some concern also.
    Ms. Holtan. We do not know how many adoptions are working
or not working, because no one tracks it nationally. The 82
figure I gave you was our agency only. I would love to know
what the figure is across the country, but there is no one
counting that.
    All we can say is that we have never seen anything like
this in the 27 years of our program. Something is different
with the children that we are being called on for. All I want
to have happen is that agencies start preparing families and be
there after the fact. Why are folks calling Tressler, who are
strangers to them? Where is their own agency then they need
help?
    Senator Landrieu. Absolutely. And that is hopeful, Mr.
Chairman. One good thing about this legislation, and I think
one of the improvements we could make, is it requires pre-
adoption services, that the agencies would be responsible for.
We must make sure such services are provided in the middle and
back end as well.
    Ms. Harding, you suggested or said that there have been
some development of steps to accreditation. Could you take a
minute to just briefly describe some of those steps that an
agency or an individual may have to go through in your mind to
become accredited, or the types of things they would have to do
to serve at that standard or to reach that standard?
    Ms. Harding. I talked to the CEO of the Council on
Accreditation a week ago. And apparently there is 25 agencies
who are working in international adoption who have already
received accreditation, and at least 12 to 15 more in the
process. And there are different estimates of how many agencies
will elect to become accredited, but some say 200.
    Our agency did go through accreditation 2 years ago. It was
very rigorous. It took us 2 years to complete our accreditation
process. I will not say it was easy. I will say that our agency
is much better for it.
    I think that Susan brought up a point that is very valid.
This has been a whole social situation that has really
developed over the years. International adoption has increased.
We have learned. And part of the accreditation process is to
help other agencies learn to do their job better.
    Peer reviewers who specialize in international adoption,
who are social workers, come into the agency and look at every
aspect of the agency. They look at your financial records,
which must be audited. They talk to your board of directors.
They interview your families. They look at all of your records,
or any random sample that they want to. They track your client
recordkeeping. They look at all of your policies and
procedures.
    So I think that it is a very good system, and there are
people in place that are doing this very well.
    Senator Landrieu. OK. I have some additional questions. My
time is up. But maybe we will get a second round.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Senator Landrieu. Mr. McDermott, you mentioned that you
think one of the changes in the bill would have to be a
technical correction made on the accreditation issue between
agencies and individuals. Explain that a little bit more, in
the sense that some of us are hoping that if you are an agency
or a lawyer or an individual, that you would have to maintain,
or believe you should maintain, the same standards and have to
meet the same accreditation requirements, or at least something
similar.
    Can you comment on that? Because I know this was a big part
of the discussion, and that is a very important thing for us to
try to work out in this final language.
    Mr. McDermott. Yes, Senator. Let me start by saying we are
not contending in any way that the standards should be lower or
less or in fact different, other than where they have to be to
fit the situation. We are in favor of rigorous standards for
qualifications to perform intercountry adoption services. That
is why we are strongly in favor of the Convention. And I think
the criteria that I have submitted that we did just for
attorneys for the record is instructive in that regard. We feel
they are pretty rigorous.
    In fact, now that we have had some of the ideas that we
have gotten from S. 682, we would add those things in there,
like the translation of records and so forth.
    But the Convention itself contemplated this. This is
something that we, as the Academy and part of the U.S.
delegation, were involved in this. It was a major issue for the
State Department. The U.S. delegation believed in this, that
there should not be artificial restrictions on who can provide
adoption services.
    And in the Convention itself, Article 22.1 is the article
that addresses accredited agencies. And Article 22.2 is the
article that addresses others. And it speaks in terms of bodies
and persons other than these accredited agencies, but makes it
clear that they need to be regulated, approved and controlled,
and there has to be a lot of oversight.
    So your point is well taken, Senator, that there should be
no suggestion that there be a lower standard applied to these
other people who are going to be allowed to provide
intercountry adoption services.
    Senator Landrieu. But you all are objecting, though, to
having to follow the standards as outlined for an agency under
the idea that you are not an agency, but yet you are in some
ways going to be functioning like an agency. So I think we have
to work through that and see. And maybe there is some ways that
we can sharpen that language. And I am open to your suggestions
and I know the chairman is.
    Mr. McDermott. And we are very much looking forward to
working with you as this project goes on.
    Senator Landrieu. And, finally, to Ms. Cox. I want to
commend you for your great work in hosting the recent
international gathering of Korean adoptees. You can, of course,
speak from personal experience, but I think it was really a
life-changing event for many of the over 300 or 400 people, Mr.
Chairman, that participated in the first gathering.
    You talked about single parents, and I wanted to revisit
that for a moment, because I think while it would be ideal for
every child to grow up in a family with two parents, it does
not happen even in the United States. It does not happen in
many places in the world. The chairman and I have talked about
that issue, in trying to find a way to work through our
differences of opinion.
    In our own domestic adoption system, I do not think--
correct me if I am wrong--there is a State that prohibits a
single person from adopting, is that correct?
    Ms. Cox. I think that is correct.
    Senator Landrieu. From your experience, while many of the
Korean adoptees came into two-parent families, some of them
have either ended up or came in initially to a single family.
Can you describe their reaction? Was it positive or negative?
    Ms. Cox. Senator and Mr. Chairman, I agree. I am very glad
that I had both a mother and father. But the fact of the matter
is I have seen children in orphanages and institutions around
the world, and we need as many families as possible for them.
So I do not think there is any disagreement that a two-parent
family is preferred, that certainly single parents also provide
that.
    Now, it is also a recognition of what does the sending
country, what are their requirements. Korea, for example, does
not--they are not open to single-parent adoptions. That is a
guidance of the Korean Government. However, many other
countries, and certainly China, has been an opportunity for
many, many little baby girls to have families, who otherwise
would not have any due to the single-parent provision. So I
really urge that that is something that is included.
    Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. In our shop a few days ago, we received a
letter from a parent in Washington State who supports S. 682,
and emphasized the need for consumer protection laws in
international adoptions. Please bear with me as I read some of
what this lady wrote regarding her adoption of a 12-year-old
girl from Russia, named Inga. And I quote her:

          Despite very specific questions of the adoption
        agency prior to picking up Inga, some crucial facts
        were not--and she underscored that--not disclosed to
        us. We were shocked to learn that she had been placed
        with two Russian families. She could not read or write
        Russian at the age of 12. She was a smoker. And she was
        a habitual runner--meaning running away from home. She
        had a history of being picked up by the police and
        brought back to the orphanage. Had we known any of
        these facts, the lady said, prior to traveling to
        Russia to pick her up, we would not have proceeded.

    Now, obviously Inga's adopted family was unable to cope
with the child and is now attempting to dissolve the adoption.
She is now a ward of the State. She has gone through six
families and two hospitalizations. And according to the lady's
letter, the adoption agency has been--and I am quoting the
lady--has been reluctant to admit any responsibility whatsoever
for its neglect in accessing pertinent, easily available
information. End of quote.
    Now, that leads me to ask, and I want any of you to respond
to it, what is the current legal responsibility of adoption
agencies to provide parents with full disclosure of physical
and mental disabilities?
    Dr. Federici. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I would
like to enter into the record, as provided by Secretary of
State Tabacaru, of Romania, who says that any and all
documentation can be obtained from the family, from the
hospital, and should be provided in great detail to the family.
And his position in Romania is that when there are statements
made to American agencies or agencies to families that the
information is not available, that is typically not correct.
    I have personally sought out for many families when I have
been on trips to Romania to go back and find information that
was told to them by the agency was not available, and have
retrieved it immediately by going to the institution. What you
just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is one of the big issues that,
again, in my sample of working with families, they said, had
they known more information, they would have not adopted.
    In the cases that I have been working on in litigation,
where my records have been subpoenaed and they retrieve the
original records from different agencies in different
countries, it was very clear that information was withheld. And
I have seen this, and this has been a big topic of litigation.
So this is something that I have heard countless time. And,
again, for the Romanian Secretary of State to say that the
records are readily available, it is just that no one asks for
them in the correct way.
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Cox?
    Ms. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add that in
addition to what are the legal requirements, there are also
ethical requirements. And even if it is not required by law,
anyone that is working in adoption needs to get as much
information as possible not only for the parents who are
adopting the children, but for the children themselves, so that
that information is available to them as they are growing up
and into their adulthood.
    Ms. Holtan. And just one other thing, Mr. Chairman. It is
difficult in some situations to get full background information
on both internationally born kids and children here in the
United States. So what we suggest at Tressler is that you train
your families in sort of more general terms. In other words, if
you are adopting from Russia, you know the alcoholism rate in
that country, therefore it is not a shock that a lot of the
children in the orphanages will be affected by fetal alcohol
syndrome.
    So you as a parent need to decide, can you take that risk?
Can you choose this child, knowing that it may not say he has
fetal alcohol syndrome or he has been sexually abused or
whatever the issue is, but that might have happened anyway? If
you can do that, then go for it. But if even thinking about it
makes you afraid, then imagine living with the situation.
    So agencies say, well, we did not know, so how could we
tell? You know enough to talk in general terms about what
institutionalization does for kids. And that is what you have
to teach.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Harding?
    Ms. Harding. One of the emphasis of Joint Council for the
last few years is parent preparation and training staff to do
better medical collection. I think that this is such a new
area, Eastern European adoptions really have proliferated in
the last few years, starting about 7 years ago in Russia, it
has been a learning experience. It is a challenge to get these
records, I can tell you.
    These people in these orphanages are oftentimes spending
most of their time trying to feed the children. They are
working for a communist system that does not pay them. They are
not highly motivated people. They do not have copy machines.
They have a lot of challenges in their life. And so we have to
find creative ways or hire enough staff to do the work
ourselves.
    We have staff now that speaks Russian, that literally calls
over there and talks to the doctors, because we cannot always
get the written medical information. We send the videos to the
parents. We send them to doctors who specialize in this in the
United States, who then ask us more questions, and we call over
there.
    But the parents have to be willing to pay for this. And if
the parents are just going to adopt from any organization or
any individual that is unwilling to go to these lengths and
have this quality assurance, they are going to or it could have
problems.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. McDermott?
    Mr. McDermott. To respond further to the chairman's
question about the current standards, that is somewhat outlined
by our legal system under this emerging tort called wrongful
adoption. And what the cases say in that area is that an agency
is required certainly not to conceal information that they do
have. And beyond that, they are required to exercise reasonable
care in gathering information that is relevant to the decision
that is being made by the adoptive parents.
    There are more and more of these cases that are wending
their way through the courts in the United States. But that is
not a good thing, because these are after-the-fact fixes for
tragic situations. And hopefully, through the legislation that
we are considering here today, these things can be prevented at
the front end and there will not be as many wrongful adoption
cases.
    The Chairman. Very well. Now, this one I am not going to
ask you to answer now. I want you to take the thought home, the
question home, and think about it and, if you do not mind,
write the Senator or me, or both of us, your answer to this
question. And I want you to be specific. What disclosure laws
do you believe would be useful in ensuring that parents will be
most fully aware and prepared for the special needs of adopted
children?
    [The information referred to was not available at press
time.]
    The Chairman. Now here is a question I want all of you to
answer now as briefly as possible. Although exact statistics on
the cost of adoptions are not available, typical fees according
fees according to our folks who looked into it, appear to be
around $15,000 to $20,000. I do not know whether that is
reasonable or not.
    Would each of you provide your understanding of what these
costs are for? What is the money used for, sir?
    Dr. Federici. Well, sir, since I am not an adoption agency
nor am I involved in it, I can only refer to an interview that
was completed while one of the remaining officials were here.
And his opinion, in Romania, is that a Romanian adoption should
cost no more than $4,000 to $5,000 from start to finish.
    His question that he left the American agencies with is:
What happened to the other money, because it is not making its
way back into the Romanian orphanage system? It is somewhere
lost between transit, between cash money sent over to the
country, to the NGO's, and he is not exactly sure and they are
trying to find some accountability.
    So that is the best answer that I can give as a non-agency.
    The Chairman. Do you agree with that?
    Ms. Holtan. Senator, in 1975, our adoption of our first son
cost $2,000, and that included the plane fare. Today, the quote
that you gave is accurate. I have heard as high as $30,000 and
$40,000. All these years, I have been waiting for the bottom to
fall out of this and people to say, I am not paying that. It
has not. It just keeps escalating.
    I do not know what could possibly cost that much money.
    Ms. Harding. The adoption ranges that I hear most are
$15,000 to $20,000, $22,000. A lot of this includes the travel
of the parent. They stay in the country for 2 to 3 to 4 weeks.
Intercontinental travel, bringing the children back, you have
to have home studies done in the United States.
    You have to hire the staff to do overseas what we mentioned
earlier to collect the information to care for the children to
bring the parents to the courts. You have a staff here in the
United States. We personally have 25 staff members here in the
United States, and I feel like they are all going to quit any
day because they are underpaid and overworked, including
myself. And we only do 200 adoptions a year.
    So it seems to me like the services we provide are getting
greater, and yet we have to make sure that we keep the costs
down. And it takes a lot of accountability. I do not think Dr.
Tabacaru understands how the system is really working in
Romania. We tried to do adoptions there for 2 years at that
price.
    Unfortunately, the Romanian foundations that they have set
up seem to have the control of the children. And they ask a
certain amount. And if you do not pay that amount, the American
families do not get those children. Now, whether that is right
or wrong, it is the reality of what is happening.
    And particularly if there are so many individuals working
on it, and a parent can adopt with simply a home study, when
they do not have an agency that they know what they are doing
to protect them. It should not be what the market should bear.
    The Chairman. Good.
    Mr. McDermott?
    Mr. McDermott. I would agree with that range being accurate
and the description of the services. It is just a matter of
life that when all these services are involved, there is going
to be expenses to pay for those. I know this is not germane
today, but that is one of the reasons why we are also vitally
interested in an extension on the adoption expense tax credit
legislation that the Congress passed a few years ago.
    Another thing I would highlight is that if any of these
costs are going to foreign facilitators as finder fees, that is
one thing that we are very concerned about.
    Ms. Cox. Senator, I believe that fees are one of the most
important barriers between children and families in adoption.
And while I agree with Tomilee, it is absolutely necessary to
provide fees for services, but they need to be appropriate fees
for services. And I cannot imagine that adoption could be
justifiably beyond $20,000. I really do think that fees are an
incredibly important issue.
    You need to provide good services. But also, some times
these fees, the higher fees, do not necessarily mean that
families are getting better services. So there are a lot of
things in this very complex issue besides just the amount of
money.
    The Chairman. Well, my understanding is that most adoption
agencies are 501(c)(3) organizations for tax purposes.
    Ms. Cox. Correct.
    The Chairman. And I asked myself, and I ask you to ponder
it, do you believe that the cost of adoptions appropriately
reflect the cost of the adoption only and not profit for
individuals providing the service? That may be a question that
varies from instance to instance.
    Senator Landrieu. Could I make a comment, if I could?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Senator Landrieu. I wanted to jump in for just a minute to
say that I think one of the goals of this Treaty is to keep the
cost down and to keep the cost appropriate and to create more
transparency in this whole process. So by being more
transparent, it becomes sort of a self-monitoring system, if
you will. The problem now is it is not transparent at all. And
it is quite difficult, and so tremendous abuse can occur.
    But I want to say for the record that the cheapest adoption
is not always the best adoption. And I think we have to keep
that in mind. And there are some agencies that provide
tremendous and terrific services and they are legitimate, and
it costs money to do that, as has been testified to. And I
would just say, Mr. Chairman, on that point, the tax credit
that the Congress adopted is currently a $5,000 tax credit for
adoption and you have to show expenses to claim it.
    But we, with your help, have put in a proposal to improve
that tax credit, to double it, No. 1, to $10,000, and to make
it real for special needs children--sibling groups, children,
international, domestic adoptions of non-infants, you know,
States that would determine what are special needs, and whether
you have expenses or not, you could still take the $10,000.
    Now, most international will have expenses, but some
domestic for special needs children do not. And so we want this
tax credit to work both international and domestic. And I hope,
Mr. Chairman, we can get that done. Of course that is a
separate piece of legislation, but we hope that could be done
this year also.
    The Chairman. Do you have any further questions?
    Senator Landrieu. No.
    The Chairman. I have kept you longer than I intended, and I
have another meeting that I must preside over in 30 minutes.
You have been very good about answering questions. Could I
impose on you one more time? There are going to be Senators who
wanted to come and who could not, who would like to ask you
questions. There will be probably the chairman who wants to ask
other questions. Would you grant us the privilege of forwarding
to you further questions and would you respond to them and get
them back to us? It would be so helpful if you would do that.
And I will personally appreciate it.
    Ms. Mary, anything else?
    Senator Landrieu. No other questions. I would just say I
really appreciate the testimony and all the hard work that is
gone into this. And as I said, we have got improvements to make
and some changes that have been mentioned today that we hope we
can work through, but we are on our way. And I thank the
chairman again. And hopefully we can--I do not know what your
timeframe is--is it possible we could move this, do you think,
this Congress?
    The Chairman. We can give it the old college try.
    Senator Landrieu. Well, I will start working on my side,
the chairman said he will start working on his side, to see if
we can get this moving forward. Thank you all so very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you all. And I thank you all folks for
being here.
    If there be no further business to come before the
committee, we will stand in recess.
    [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

             Additional Material Submitted to the Committee
                             for the Record

                                  American Embassy,
                                            Moscow, Russia.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Senator Helms: American citizens continue to adopt Russian
orphans at a brisk pace. In the first five months op this year, the
embassy issued one thousand six hundred and seventy immigrant visas to
Russian orphans adopted by American families. At this rate, we may well
exceed last year's record number of Russian orphan visa issuances, four
thousand one hundred and seventy seven.
Danger in the Caucasus
    Because Russian law requires that both adoptive parents be present
for the court hearing, the large number of American adoptions in Russia
means that many thousands of American citizens come here every year
expressly for this purpose. Unfortunately, some U.S. adoption agencies
are arranging adoptions in areas of Russia--such as the Caucasus--that
are extremely dangerous. Our consular information sheet and the state
department webs site warn against travel to the area. In fact, I
prohibit embassy personnel from traveling to the Caucasus.
    Adopting families are very attractive targets for kidnaping
because, in addition to being foreigners, it is well known that they
are spending large amounts of money in the adoption process. There is
also the problem of deadly random violence; car bombs are a frequent
aspect of daily life in this unstable part of Russia.
    This is not a theoretical problem. Four foreigners were kidnaped
and decapitated in the Caucasus last year. An American missionary has
been held hostage for the past several months because he and his family
decided to ignore the embassy's advice in the belief that their good
work and extensive local contacts would protect them. He has since lost
part of his hand and is still a hostage of a criminal gang. No
foreigner is safe in the republics that constitute the Caucasus:
Chechnya, North Ossetia, Dagestan or Ingushetia. Even Russians are at
risk; a Russian army general is currently being held captive.
    I want to emphasize that we do not object to agencies facilitating
adoptions in these dangerous localities. Rather, it is the unsafe
practice of sending American citizens into areas we consider dangerous
that is our concern. My consul general has written to several agencies
that have arranged adoptions recently in the Caucasus to suggest that
if they are committed to working in this region, they establish an
arrangement whereby the adoptive parents can accomplish the adoption by
proxy or by some other mechanism that does not endanger their clients.
Russian adoption regulations still delayed
    As you know, the Russian government in July 1998 amended its family
code with respect to international adoptions. However, the government
still has not announced guidelines and regulations to implement the
law. The guidelines will address important matters such the
registration of foreign adoption agencies, and documentary requirements
for foreign adoptions. Once the regulations are known, we expect that
foreign adoptions in Russia will become more time-consuming and
expensive. We are nonetheless confident that foreign adoptions will
continue.
    Lacking guidelines since the law was amended, there has been even
less uniformity than usual in how Russia's eighty nine jurisdictions
have processed adoptions. This has caused some adoptions to be delayed.
As I mentioned to you in my last update, the court in Irkutsk has been
particularly obstructionist. To ameliorate the situation, we have
invited a member of the Irkutsk court that handles adoptions to visit
the U.S. as a participant in a United States Information Agency-
sponsored program entitled ``Russian Children and America:
Understanding the U.S. Adoption Process.'' The judge has accepted our
invitation and will travel to the U.S. in late June and return to
Russia in early July. USIA, the sponsoring agency, is arranging for the
judge and other participants in the program to meet with Congressional
members and staff. Also, an embassy officer will travel to Irkutsk next
week to meet with local officials to discuss ways of allowing adoptions
to proceed.
Fiancees
    While it has become a well-known fact that embassy Moscow issues
more orphan visas than any other post in the world, you may not be
aware that we also handle a large number of fiance (k-i) visas. We are
second only to Manila in the volume of fiance visa cases processed, and
the number is steadily rising. In order to improve customer service to
the prospective brides and grooms, my consul general has Worked out an
expedited scheduling plan that in most Instances allows us to process a
fiance visa in about four weeks, the minimum time necessary to complete
the required name check. This has cut the waiting time by fifty
percent. Once we receive an approved fiance petition from INS, and
assuming the applicant is otherwise qualified, we can issue the visa
the same day as the interview.
    I want to assure you that we will continue to do all that we can to
assist U.S. citizens with adoptions and other visa matters, and to keep
you informed of developments here.
            Sincerely,
                      James F. Collins, Ambassador,
                                  American Embassy, Moscow.
                               __________

  Statement Submitted by William Pierce, National Council for Adoption

    Mr. Chairman, the National Council For Adoption (NCFA) welcomes
this opportunity to submit testimony on S. 682, the Intercountry
Adoption Act. We are pleased and honored by your leadership in respect
to this important legislation. We are also grateful for the bipartisan
nature of S. 682, as reflected by the co-sponsorship of Sen. Mary
Landrieu (D-LA). We have participated in and closely monitored the
progress of the Hague Convention for a decade and, based on our
experience, we believe that, all things considered, S. 682 is the
superior legislative approach and therefore strongly endorse your bill.
    NCFA is a national organization, formed in 1980, which has four
major functions--part research body, part public education body, part
advocacy group and part membership group. This statement reflects our
interests in all four categories.
    In terms of research, we have looked closely at intercountry
adoption issues and professionally, I have been involved with the issue
for more than 30 years of my career in social services. For the last 10
years, I have spent perhaps half of my time on the Hague Convention,
first in preparation for the sessions, then as a member of the U.S.
Delegation, and since 1993, working collaboratively with people in the
U.S. and around the world to ensure that implementation is as
appropriate as possible.
    In terms of public education, we spend an enormous amount of time
trying to convince people who are interested in adopting abroad to do
their homework and do it right, but many people do not listen and then
make major, life-changing mistakes. We also take many, many calls and
complaints, some forwarded by government agencies, some by elected
officials, trying to help citizens after the fact.
    In terms of advocacy, we have, thanks to your excellent staff and
their outreach to the broad adoption community, had an opportunity to
provide our views about implementing legislation prior to the
introduction of S. 682 and subsequent to S. 682's introduction. We have
provided your staff with extremely detailed suggestions for making a
good bill even better and we will not repeat those voluminous remarks
in this Statement.
    In terms of membership, we are perhaps unique in that we have as
members not-for-profit adoption agencies, adoption attorneys, social
workers, physicians, adoptive parents, adult adopted persons, persons
who have placed children for adoption, academics, members of the
media--in short, several thousand persons in every state and even some
members in other countries. Perhaps half of our present membership of
130 member agencies is currently involved in some fashion in the
provision of services to persons considering international adoption,
and virtually all the rest are considering this area of service because
of the tremendous numbers of children languishing, without families, in
other countries. Of our attorney membership, only a small percentage
currently are involved with intercountry adoption, just as only a tiny
percentage of attorneys generally are presently involved with
intercountry adoption, except for re-adoptions here in the U.S.
    But, and this should be stressed, our views here and always are not
primarily those of a professional association of either agencies or
attorneys: we see our constituents as a much broader group including
women faced with crisis pregnancies, children who have a right to live
with parents who are willing and able to provide them with a sound
moral framework in which to grow to responsible, productive adulthood
and not just a place and family to live with. For that reason, we are
frequently seen as a critic of poor adoption services, and rightly so:
we believe that the best way to protect the good things in
international adoption is to ensure that the incompetent, whether well-
meaning or not, and the unethical are not in the ranks of adoption
providers here or abroad.
    We are also sometimes seen as not sufficiently responsive to the
interests of children, especially children who have been adopted as
minors and who, as adults, believe that they have a right to intrude
into the lives of the women who bravely and humanely granted them both
the opportunity to be born and the chance for a better life. We are
keenly aware of the challenges facing women who are pregnant, and who
are often unmarried--challenges which are complicated by religious,
ethnic, political, language, cultural and national differences. Not
every woman who chooses adoption or feels she has no real choice but
adoption, given the circumstances in which she finds herself, fits the
media stereotype of a birth mother anxious to have the adopted person
come knocking at her door. In some countries and in some cultures, a
knock on the door may be far more than an embarrassment or an uncaring
exhibition of curiosity--it may literally destroy lives. The American
culture, with its all-too-frequent preoccupation with sexuality and
casual acceptance of nonmarital relationships that result in pregnancy,
is not the sort of culture from which many of the children who come to
the U.S. for adoption originate. I believe that the American approach
to human rights and the rights of women to place their babies with
whomever they choose, within the laws that prevent baby-selling and
obviously improper activity, should be respected. That means, in my
view, that a woman should have the right, without any governmental view
that the country ``owns'' children interfering, to exercise her
Constitutionally-protected right to travel, whether pregnant or with
her baby, and to arrange an adoption. If, for instance, she was born in
Mexico, or Canada, or Ireland, or the Philippines--or any other country
other than the U.S.--she should have the option of returning there or
going wherever she wishes to place her child with the parents of her
choice or through the adoption provider of her choice. By what
reasoning should our government try to second-guess her decision? It
certainly is obvious that at present a woman who is a U.S. citizen has
the opportunity to travel abroad if she wishes to arrange an abortion
and she should have exactly the same right to travel abroad if she
wishes to arrange an adoption.
    We now offer comments on some of the topics that have been raised
during the years the Hague Convention has been under discussion,
including topics or statements made in connection with the Oct. 5,
1999, hearing.
    The U.S. as the major adopting country. Asst. Sec. Mary Ryan and
others have stated that they believe that the U.S. adopts more children
from abroad than all other countries combined. I note for the record
that no data were presented to support this estimate. The fact is that
there are other countries and localities, Quebec Province being just
one example, where the rate of adoptions from other countries exceeds
that of the U.S. Gross numbers alone may distort the picture since the
U.S. is a nation with a very large population.
    HHS and its role in intercountry adoption and the Hague Convention.
As a professional, I have worked in Washington since 1969 and had
numerous interactions with the various federal agencies which have been
mentioned as having a role in implementing the Convention. The fact is
that one of the reasons we strongly support S. 682 is that the bill
recognizes the necessity for locating the responsibility squarely in
the Department of State. HHS indeed is the lead agency for domestic,
special needs adoptions but its role during the last 20 years in
particular has been anything but positive in respect to intercountry
adoptions in general and to adoptions of children across racial and
ethnic lines in particular. There have been numerous occasions when
former U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who represented Ohio, has
criticized HHS for its failure to carry out his MultiEthnic Placement
Act. Some of these critiques have been before Congressional hearings,
others with the media and this last Spring in a panel presentation at
our Annual Conference. Because intercountry adoption is almost always
interethnic and substantially inter-racial in nature, it would be a
grave error to allow HHS to play any role whatsoever of a substantive
nature in the implementing legislation. HHS has also demonstrated its
lack of interest by its absence from the policy discussions of
intercountry adoption since 1989. I did not see HHS as part of the U.S.
Delegation. Only when implementing legislation began to be discussed
and there was a need to consider what agency would have the role of
overseeing agency accreditation did HHS appear. HHS does have
substantial experience in some accreditation functions but not in
intercountry adoption. Whichever federal agency is assigned this role
by Congress, and I urge the Committee to hold fast to a single
designation for State, that agency will need to hire consultants or
staff or train existing personnel to gear up for the responsibility. It
will be just as easy for State to do this as HHS and since State has a
reputation for being adoption-friendly and helpful to citizens
traveling overseas to adopt, State is quite properly the best choice.
State is the only agency of the three agencies mentioned in hearings
and discussions--State, INS and HHS--with any sort of track record of
responsiveness to citizens, or even to Congress. Not a month goes by
that I do not receive a call from some Member of Congress who is
frustrated by a lack of responsiveness from INS, and INS is head-and-
shoulders above HHS in its competence and ability to work in
international adoptions. The surest way to miss deadlines and to foul
up international adoptions for U.S. citizens is to allow HHS to get
involved in the process. There are many reasons why HHS has not been
involved to date, not the least of which is its ``family preservation
at all costs'' philosophy, an approach which sometimes even intrudes
into the refugee and AID precincts of State.
    Abuses and problems as a reason for the Convention. Many of those
who comment on the Convention focus on the relatively few abuses and
problems in intercountry adoption rather than the astounding successes.
This focus on the negative was present in the 1960s and continues to
this day, a reflection of the fact that there have been isolated
instances of problems--trafficking and fraud and bribery and
misrepresentation and ineptitude--which have gotten headlines. And the
light of public opinion is a strong disinfectant, one we like to see
applied liberally. There were terrible miscarriages of justice in
Argentina and some bad practices in Colombia (before our Ambassador
helped his colleagues in Colombia root out the problematic people and
organizations) and some mis-steps with the Vietnamese Baby Lift and
some well-intentioned movements to pull children out of war-torn or
disaster areas. But these are a minority of cases, and no reason to
discard adoption across national borders. It is statistically
predictable that there will be problems in any field of endeavor and
our job is not to shut down those activities but to root out wrongdoers
and prevent any repetition of improper, illegal or unethical acts. The
Convention is designed to help ensure that when such problems arise
they will be promptly and effectively dealt with. The Convention will
ensure that intercountry adoption is as ``clean'' as humanly possible.
    Case-tracking and the temptations of public servants to expand.
During these years of discussions, the matter of ``case-tracking'' has
come up again and again and we would like to draw your attention to
this matter. While no doubt there will be a need for State to develop a
system, and INS will need to be involved, there are concerns about the
size and scope of this case-tracking system. As a part of a delegation
of organizations working under the ad hoc ``Hague Alliance'' I recall
vividly hearing an exchange between two individuals, one from State and
one from INS, the sense of which was that State and INS intended to
spend a great deal of time and perhaps as much as a million dollars
developing a tracking system. I would urge the Committee to keep a
close eye on this case tracking system, so that it does not become
either a waste of taxpayer or appropriated funds, or that it delays
implementation of the Convention. The Convention should not be used as
the excuse to do what well-intentioned public servants have had on
their agenda for years.
    Post-placement and post-finalization involvement of government.
These are two very important issues that we respectfully urge the
Committee to monitor. First of all, there is a significant difference
between post-placement and post-finalization. Once an adoption has been
finalized by a court, and this is usually a court in the child's
country of origin, that is a complete adoption. That family is legally
the same as a family formed by biology and should not be subject to
ongoing monitoring and especially should not be subject to intrusion.
In the U.S., we do not interfere in the sanctity of the family without
very good cause, and an adoptive family is no different than a family
formed through biological reproduction within marriage. It is clear
that countries of origin are concerned with the outcome of children
placed with American and other families and who grow up outside the
countries of their births. It should be possible for voluntary
understandings to be reached which accommodate the legitimate interests
of the orphanage and other officials to know how the children are
faring, in a general way. But neither government entities nor adoption
providers can or should be empowered to play ``Big Brother'' for the
years of an adopted child's minority. This is an area where sound
diplomacy and extremely good adoption practice can combine to protect
family autonomy and reassure countries of origin. Secondly, there have
been many references made to ``post-adoption services'' during the
years the Convention has been under consideration and we would like to
point out some concerns about this aspect of adoption. First, there is
virtually no limit to what the government could end up paying for if
``post-adoption services'' becomes a feature that must be paid for as a
part of international adoption services. Just as foster care and other
related services have mushroomed into a multi-billion dollar
``industry'' so also could the present crowd of consultants, so-called
experts and actual experts do to international adoption what they have
done to domestic adoption. We urge great caution in respect to any
mention of ``post-adoption services'' in legislation and specifically
suggest that any regulations relating to this subject be required to be
cleared in advance by the Committee on Foreign Relations because of the
professional and diplomatic considerations involved.
    Uniformity among the States. Adoption is a matter of family law and
in essence should be left to the various states. Although there are
claims about ``trends'' and ``the movement of the field'' in one
direction or another, much of this discussion is a matter of wishful
thinking on the part of advocates for one position or another. As a
case in point, consider North Carolina and its laws on privacy of
adoption records. Although a number of state legislatures have seen
fit, unwisely in our opinion, to water down promises made to women who
bravely chose adoption for their babies and to retroactively change
laws so as to inhumanely destroy their reputations and lives, North
Carolina has not done so. Neither have a number of other states moved
to allow adopted persons to disrupt the lives of the women (and, less
frequently, men) who made it possible for them to have the gift of life
with parents who were ready and willing to take on child-rearing
responsibilities. The most ambitious move to achieve uniformity, the
Uniform Adoption Act, has been endorsed and actually supported by
groups like the American Bar Association and NCFA, but not the American
Academy of Adoption Attorneys. We find it odd that some have testified
as to the need for uniformity in international laws about adoption
while resisting rather minimal uniformity in domestic laws about
adoption. We strongly urge that, to the extent possible, the Committee
resist attempts to ``federalize'' adoption laws, even in supposedly
innocuous plans such as setting up Federal Adoption Reunion Registries,
a pet scheme of Sen. Levin of Michigan for two decades. It is true that
state licensing is uneven in its content and application. So also is
state monitoring of intercountry adoption operations and complaint
processing. But the only thing worse than imperfect administration of
programs at the state level is imperfect administration of programs at
the federal level, with the complications of dozens of jurisdictions
and the necessity for layers and layers of bureaucracy.
    Accreditation, approval and quality considerations. Great hopes
have been attached to the accreditation of agencies as a means of
ensuring quality services for American citizens and proper protection
for children. And undoubtedly, if accreditation is properly carried
out, the net effect will be an improvement of quality. But
accreditation is essentially a consultative process, not a policing
process, at least as carried out by human services accrediting bodies.
Therefore, there should be no illusion about any accreditation, even if
NCFA were to take on such a role (and this is highly unlikely),
guaranteeing or ensuring quality. I have spent nearly 30 years working
in the field and seeing first-hand how membership standards and
accreditation actually work and can assure the Committee that these are
very much a matter of art and not science. At bottom, there are many
variables which account for quality: staff; supervision; turnover;
board leadership; dedication to mission; consumer service; financial
accountability; creativity; flexibility; relationship of fees to
services provided; activity of consultants, contract employees and
various facilitators. An agency I would rate as ``A'' one year may, in
the course of a few months, become a ``C'' agency because its CEO has
retired and its director of intercountry adoption services has
resigned. By the same token, an agency that is new or struggling or
marginal can substantially improve its quality of service and go from a
``D'' to a ``B.'' The same is true for those who may be seeking
approval under the Convention. Just as there are good agencies and
marginal or bad agencies, there are good attorneys and social workers
and marginal or bad attorneys and social workers. Good as the oversight
of accreditation will be from State, I can assure you that even if I
had that task (and I will not have that assignment) there would still
be a need for independent and ongoing monitoring by others in State to
ensure that citizen complaints are promptly answered and actions taken
to improve services. Accreditation or approval, even if it met the sort
of requirements I outlined in the law review article published in 1996
by the Catholic University of America, which is provided as an
attachment to this Statement, would still not provide the sort of
assurances that the Committee would prefer.
    Adoption counseling. Much has been made of the difficulty that
would be encountered were S. 682's provisions calling for pre-adoption
education and preparation of prospective adoptive parents. There are
many models available which the Committee could use to tailor more
precisely its language, but the essential wisdom of the provision
remains. To ensure that something happens to help prepare people for
the challenges of intercountry adoption, there needs to be a specific
requirement in the law. Certainly there will be uneven application of
the requirement. Some training will be better because the people
preparing the curriculum or doing the training are more experienced and
competent. We urge the Committee to require at least one hour of
training per week over a period of six weeks and leave the details of
the training to regulations.
    Adoption provider responsibility. Most intercountry adoptions today
are finalized prior to the time that the child leaves her or his
country of origin, so that if a placement breaks down it usually is
after the child comes home to the U.S. with the adopting family. We
believe that it is proper for the implementing legislation to address
the issue of provider responsibility. Our view is that the law should
require the adoption provider, whether an agency, an attorney, a social
worker or any other entity, to provide for permanent legal parents for
the children they place. This means that if an adoption breaks down,
there should be a clear responsibility for the provider to take custody
and responsibility for the child if the adoption has not been finalized
by a court. For finalized adoptions, we believe that the legislation
should strongly encourage but not require adoption providers to step
in, because it is impractical to hold providers responsible. In terms
of those few adoptions that do break down after court finalization, we
believe that data should be gathered but in such a fashion as to
respect the privacy of the family and within the practical limits of
adoption providers.
    Central information source. We noted with interest the statement in
Asst. Sec. Ryan's statement that ``Under the Convention, the U.S.
Central Authority will arrange for access to a central source of
information on U.S. state laws relevant to intercountry adoption.'' We
are concerned about how this statement might be implemented, given the
past history of adoption information and the federal government. A GAO
study, INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION: Procedures Are Reasonable, But Sometimes
Inefficiently Administered, April 1993 (GAO/NSIAN-93-83), done at the
request of Sen. Specter of Pennsylvania commented, at p. 29, on the one
HHS activity that directly related to intercountry adoption, the
National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, operated under contract.
The GAO report says ``The information is broad based and generally
useful, but it contains some mistakes that could cause a processing
delay or confusion. For example, prospective parents are advised that
an approved home study is needed when submitting an orphan application
for advance processing when, in fact, the home study may be admitted
later. Also, according to the [NAIC] information, the orphan petition
should be filed when the child is legally adopted in the foreign court.
To the contrary, it should be filed as soon as possible [emphasis
added].'' We hope that the Committee would preclude any use of HHS or
its Clearinghouses to provide such information. We also experience,
each day, dozens of calls from citizens who have not been able to get
answers from any other source and call us thinking that somehow we are
a federal, taxpayer-supported organization. We clarify that we are a
private charity but do try to help, especially if a person or couple is
about to make a terrible or costly error. We even take calls from
citizens of other countries who are temporarily residing in the U.S.,
who have been referred by their embassies to us. The kind of
information Asst. Sec. Ryan mentioned is critical to provide and we
urge the Committee to ensure that this information be provided by
State, or if not directly by State, by competent, adoption-savvy and
adoption-friendly sources. Today, much excellent information is on the
internet and State has excellent resources on its site but there is
also a great deal of misleading information.
    Limiting adoption to married couples. One of the aspects of S. 682
which has drawn comment is the requirement that U.S. children who are
adopted by persons who are citizens of other countries be adopted only
by married couples composed of a male and a female. Some of the
comments and statements have called this ``an unprecedented standard''
and predict various dire consequences. For the record, we would point
out, as Susan Cox of Holt did in her oral testimony, that the country
which has the longest and, arguably, the most successful intercountry
adoption program, the Republic of Korea, has had a general rule of this
sort from the outset. There have been exceptions, of course, as there
always are to general rules, for good cause. But the policy has been
proven out in research findings which have reflected outstanding
results for children from Korea adopted by American couples. Korea's
policy has not restrained other countries, such as China or Russia or
Colombia or others, to put any similar restriction in place. If this is
an approach which the Committee believes is best for American children,
then we would strongly support this viewpoint not just because of the
precedent from Korea but because of the evidence from child development
research as well as common sense, evidence once again confirmed by the
comments in the Hearing, that all things being equal a child benefits
from having a Mom and a Dad rather than only a Mom or, less frequently,
only a Dad. We are aware that there are groups who wish to expand on
adoption practices allowed in some states and allow unmarried couples,
whether of the same gender or otherwise, to adopt. We are gravely
concerned about this approach and urge the Committee to reject such a
drastic step. Those who cannot or will not commit to each other legally
can hardly commit to a lifetime of parenting and legal responsibility
for a child. By the same token, we are quite aware and applaud the many
single parents who have stepped forward and are very successfully
raising adopted children. We would not wish our concerns about
adoptions by unmarried couples to be misread as opposition to adoption
by single, unmarried persons when the situation is in the best
interests of the child.
    Twelve month waiting period. We have serious concerns about this
provision in S. 682 for the reasons outlined at length in previous
communications to the staff of the Chairman. We urge its deletion or,
if any waiting period is retained, that it be applied only to those
children who are within the public child welfare system. Any waiting
period for newborn children would be profoundly problematic and could
lead to unintended consequences. As stated above, we believe that if a
woman wishes to plan adoption for her newborn, this is her right and is
not subject to interference by federal, state or local officials, by
tribal or parental interests, or by any other party except, where
indicated and appropriate under applicable state law, the biological
father of the baby. On the other hand, an argument could be made that
if a child is a ward of the state then the state could determine to
wait a year and seek a U.S. family for the child. We would hope that
such a policy decision would not be made, but it would have the virtue
of recognizing ``parental'' or ``in loco parentis'' status.
    Privacy considerations. Having been a member of the U.S.
Delegation, I had the privilege of hearing the debate at The Hague
about privacy. It is clear that many sending countries desire to
protect the privacy of biological parents. It is also clear that some
of the receiving countries, especially those in Western Europe, have
views on privacy that are quite different--views that would place the
rights of the child to intrude upon a parent above the rights of the
very parent who carefully decided to carry a baby to term or to place a
child for adoption precisely because of privacy guarantees. We urge you
to ensure that those privacy guarantees are respected and, as
necessary, that loopholes which would endanger the reputation (and at
times, the very life) of a woman would be closed.
    Findings on outcomes of children. There have been various reports
issued about the health and developmental status of adopted children
prior to and as part of the Hearing. We would urge the Committee to
carefully review any claims about outcomes and determine how much
scientific validity is present. It is true that substantial numbers of
children from Romania (and to a lesser extent, from other Eastern
European countries) have been diagnosed with serious developmental and
other problems. Reports on these children, however, are largely from a
self-referred sample and are likely to be the result of well-meaning
attempts to provide homes to children who were portrayed on the media
as languishing in orphanages established in Romania's Ceaucescu era.
Similarly, reports of good outcomes for children from Eastern Europe,
at least to date, appear to be from selected samples. Much more study
is required before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about
children from Eastern Europe.
    Consumers of adoption service. We have noted with interest some of
the letters and statements provided to the Committee for the Hearing,
especially those which reflect profound dissatisfaction with services.
We urge the Committee to import into S. 682 substantial portions of
legislation drafted by Rep. James Traficant of Ohio, legislation which
aims to improve the odds that consumers of adoption service will have
information they need to make informed choices. We would also point out
that these consumer protections are part of the assignment that all
Central Authorities are expected to take on not just in respect to
their own citizens but in order to be able to exchange information with
other Central Authorities.
    Conclusion. We are deeply grateful to the Chairman for his
leadership on this important issue. We believe that S. 682 is a sound
piece of legislation. As Sen. Landrieu stated in the Hearing, it is not
``perfect'' but it is an astounding contribution to intercountry
adoption and to the millions of children whose futures depend on the
Hague Convention--now and in the years to come. We urge the Senate to
approve S. 682 and stand ready to be of assistance or counsel as the
legislative process moves forward. We respectfully request that the
Senate complete its work during this calendar year. The birth mothers,
the children and the adoptive families need action now.
                               __________

       Statement Submitted by the Child Welfare League of America

    The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) welcomes this
opportunity to submit testimony on S. 682, the Intercountry Adoption
Act. We commend the efforts of the bill's bipartisan sponsors for
taking steps to both ratify the Convention on Protection of Children
and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) a
id to put forth legislation to implement the Convention.
    CWLA is an 80-year-old association of more than 1,000 public and
private nonprofit community-based agencies that serve more than three
million children, youth, and families each year. CWLA member agencies
provide the wide array of services necessary to protect and care for
abused and neglected children, including child protective services,
family preservation, family foster care, treatment foster care,
residential group care, adolescent pregnancy prevention, child day
care, emergency shelter care, independent living, youth development,
and adoption. Nearly 400 of our member agencies provide services that
enable children to secure loving, permanent families through adoption.
Of that total, approximately 125 agencies provide international
adoption services.
    CWLA and our member agencies were active participants throughout
the convention process. The Child Welfare League of Canada's former
executive director was part of the official delegation from Canada to
the Hague Conference on Private International Law that led to the
enactment of the Convention on Intercountry Adoption. CWLA provided
direct input to the official United States delegation during the
negotiations leading up to the United Stat s signing the treaty in
1994. CWLA member agencies were represented on the Study Group on
Intercountry Adoption convened by the United States Department of
State. Following the adoption of the Convention, CWLA member agencies
and others in the forefront of intercountry adoptions drafted
accreditation standards consistent with the Convention. These draft
accreditation standards are available for review and/or revision and
implementation by the United States central authority to be designated
in legislation to implement the treaty. CWLA also provided input into
the proposed implementing legislation transmitted to Congress by the
Administration.
                            need for action
    Intercountry adoption can offer children the advantage of a
permanent family for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or
her country of origin. Increasingly, families in the United States are
choosing to build their families by adopting children from abroad. The
number of children from other countries who were adopted by families in
the United States has nearly doubled in the past 10 years.

  <bullet> In the last 10 years, almost 100,000 children have joined
        United States families through intercountry adoption.
  <bullet> In 1988, a total of 9,356 international adoptions were
        completed.
  <bullet> In 1998, 15,774 international adoptions were completed in
        the United States. That number is expected to increase
        significantly in the next decade.

    There is substantial public and governmental interest in attending
to and monitoring the international process to protect children from
exploitation and abuse and further to ensure their safety and well-
being. Recognizing this need, the United States signed the Convention
on Intercountry Adoption in 1994. The Convention prescribes a framework
for cooperation and a legal structure to safeguard children, birth
parents, and adoptive parents involved in intercountry adoption. The
Convention addresses safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions
are in the best interest of children. It establishes a system of
cooperation among countries to prevent abduction, sale of, or traffic
in children.
    The United States signing of the Convention was only the first
step. The treaty is not legally binding until it is ratified by the
United States Senate. To become operational, implementing legislation
also needs to be passed by both the House and Senate. As other
countries ratify the Convention, they agree to place children for
adoption only with countries that offer the same protections. Delay or
failure of the United States to ratify and implement the treaty could
result in thousands of American families not being able to adopt
children from other countries.
                    comments on provisons of s. 682
    We agree with the important goal of the legislation: to ensure that
children joining families through adoption across national borders be
better protected. Today we offer comments and recommendations on S.
682.
Establishment of Central Authority
    The United States is unique from other countries in that adoption
is governed by state laws, which leads to as many as 50 different
offices with related but somewhat different eligibility requirements,
forms, and procedures for other foreign governments to interact with to
complete an intercountry adoption. This variability is very confusing
to other countries that have one central authority for handling
adoptions and one set of eligibility requirements, forms, and
procedures.
    Establishing a national central authority will ensure that the
United States has a single authoritative source of information about
the laws and procedures for intercountry adoptions in the United
States. The central authority will serve as a single point of contact
for other party countries to look for reliable information about
adoption laws in the United States. The central authority will also be
responsible for monitoring United States implementation of the
Convention, to ensure that the adoption procedures outlined in the
Convention are followed. These procedures include ensuring that the
necessary consents for adoption have been obtained, the country sending
the children has determined that the child is eligible for adoption,
and the country receiving the child has determined that the potential
adoptive parents are eligible and suited to adopt. S. 682 designates
the United States Department of State as the central authority with
total responsibility for these functions. CWLA agrees that the State
Department should have a pivotal role in overseeing intercountry
adoptions.
Accreditation Oversight
    Under the Convention, all agencies providing international adoption
services have to be accredited. CWLA helped prepare draft accreditation
standards that are now available for review and/or revision and
implementation by the designated United States Central Authority. These
standards of practice detail the fundamental requirements for providing
quality intercountry adoption services. Given the complexity of
intercountry adoption, standards of practice need to be consistent
throughout the country, and agencies need to be accredited to
demonstrate their competence in this specialized field of adoption.
This accreditation process will ensure that agencies doing adoption
services are reputable, have knowledge of the special issues and
expertise needed to do intercountry adoptions competently, and follow
sound business practices.
    Licensed, nonprofit adoption agencies play a pivotal role in
ensuring protections both for the children and the families seeking to
adopt. Although independent intercountry adoptions have been possible
in the United States and can continue under the Convention, CWLA
believes that, due to the complexities inherent in adoption, all
adoptions, domestic or intercountry, need to be completed through a
licensed, nonprofit social service agency. The added complexity of
intercountry adoption increases the need for the involvement of social
service agencies to ensure that the children have been voluntarily
released by their birth parents or freed for adoption in a legally
correct manner, and that services were offered to birth parents if they
are known, to ensure that they made an uncoerced decision with full
knowledge of the implications of their decision.
    Social service agencies are also in the best position to prepare
families for the challenging and rewarding experience of intercountry
adoption and to support them following placement and following the
legal completion of their adoptions. Not only do families need to deal
with the usual issues of adoption--grief and loss, attachment,
explaining adoption to their children, assisting with self-concept, and
integrating the reality of both birth family and adoptive family into
their own identities--but they must also be prepared to help children
with abrupt changes in language, customs, food, climate, dress, and
behavioral expectations in their new country.
    S. 682 assigns oversight of accreditation to the United States
Department of State. CWLA believes that role should be assigned to the
United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That
agency has the knowledge and expertise in child welfare policy and
practice including adoption services. CWLA suggests that HHS, in
coordination with the Department of State, be delegated the
accreditation responsibilities prescribed by the Convention.
Need for Post-Legal Adoption Services
    CWLA strongly recommends that S. 682 add provisions to promote the
development of post-adoption services. Article 9 of the Convention
states that the central authority shall promote the development of
post-adoption services yet, S. 682 makes no provision for these
services. Families adopting children from other countries are likely to
need assistance after the adoption is finalized. In addition to the
issues related to changes in culture and language increasing numbers of
children adopted from other countries are older; in some instances,
they have experienced years of living in orphanages or other
institutions and need help adjusting to living within a family. A
significant number of children are reported to have problems related to
attachment and bonding with their new families. Post-adoption services
such as respite care, counseling, and parent education and training can
support parents in meeting the specific needs of their adopted children
to maintain safe, nurturing, permanent families. Post-adoption services
are the key to preventing adoption disruptions and dissolution and
should be available to all adoptive families.
Married Couple Requirement for the Adoption of U.S. Children
    CWLA recommends that the requirement set forth in S. 682, that
parents adopting United States children be a ``married man and woman''
be dropped. That proposal creates an unprecedented standard for both
United States or intercountry adoption and creates additional barriers
for children in need of permanent adoptive families. CWLA Standards for
Adoption Practice state that all applicants should have an equal
opportunity to apply for the adoption of children and receive fair and
equal treatment and consideration of their qualifications as adoptive
parents. The needs of the child are always the priority consideration
in adoption. The imposition of this type of limitation may result in
other countries reciprocating by imposing similar restrictions on
United States adoptive parents. This would result in fewer children
finding permanent families CWLA opposes any measure, such as the
restriction contained in S. 682, which would restrict permanency
options for the children in need of permanent families.
Access to Identifying Information
    Article 30 of the Convention mandates that information on the child
concerning the child's origin--in particular information concerning the
identity of his or her parents as well as the medical history--be
preserved. The Convention also states that the child or his or her
representative should have access to such information, under
appropriate guidance, in so far as is permitted by the law of the
state. S. 682, however, prohibits access to identifying information in
adoption records. The evidence is increasingly clear that individuals
who were adopted as children need information about their backgrounds
for their optimal mental health. While such information is often
fragmentary in intercountry adoptions, what is available should be
shared. CWLA suggests that S. 682 be changed so to allow identifying
information to be maintained, and provisions and conditions for access
be determined, as set forth in the Convention.
Twelve-Month Waiting Period to Adopt Children in the United States
    S. 682 prohibits the adoption of a child from the United States
until 12 months after the child has been made available for adoption.
CWLA suggests that this provision be dropped. CWLA opposes any
restriction that would delay placement of children into permanent
families. The imposition of this type of limitation may result in other
countries reciprocating by imposing similar restrictions on children
leaving their countries. This would result in unnecessary delays for
children in need of permanent families.
Annual Report on Disrupted Adoptions
    The annual report prescribed in S. 682 includes data on the number
of disrupted adoptions, including the reasons for the disruption and
the resolution of the adoption. Disruptions usually refer to ending an
adoption between the time the placement agreement is signed and the
adoption is finalized. In intercountry adoptions, 80% of the adoptions
are finalized in the sending country prior to the child entering the
United States. The burden of measuring disruptions in intercountry
adoptions, therefore, falls exclusively on individual adoptive
families. This requirement imposes an intrusive burden on adoptive
families, violating their right to privacy. We suggest that this data
element be dropped from the annual reporting requirements.
    In sum, we again commend this Committee for moving forward to
implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in
Respect of Intercountry Adoption. We applaud the efforts of the
Senators who worked diligently in developing this legislation, which we
believe can and should move forward, with improvements. We look forward
to continuing to work with you to help protect children as they move
across national borders to find loving, permanent families.
                               __________
                      American Bar Association,
                       Governmental Affairs Office,
                                  740 Fifteenth Street, NW,
                                  Washington, DC, September 1, 1999
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden. Jr.,
Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Senator Biden: On behalf of the American Bar Association
(ABA), I write to express our interest in continuing to work with you
and your colleagues on the Committee on Foreign Relations as you hold
hearings on S. 682, the Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation
Act of 1999.
    Recently, the ABA Sections of Family Law and International Law
jointly developed the enclosed comments in support of the ratification
of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation
in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and the proposed implementing
legislation, entitled the Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA), submitted by
President Clinton to Senate leaders and Administration officials. The
comments on the proposed IAA are presented on behalf of the Family and
International Law Sections. They have not been approved by the ABA
House of Delegates or the Board of Governors and, accordingly, should
not be construed as representing the position of the Association.
    We are writing to transmit these comments and request that this
letter be made part of the record ot the Committee's hearing of
September 15, 1999 as the debate continues over the many complex issues
involved in developing uniform international legal procedures to govern
intercountry adoptions.
    Should you wish to obtain further information on the ABA's role in
dealing with the Convention or adoption issues, please do not hesitate
to contact Irving Daniels in this office. We look forward to working
with you and your Committee to assist in the passage of this important
legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                   Robert D. Evans.
                                 ______

                      American Bar Association,
                             Section of Family Law,
                                750 North Lake Shore Drive,
                                         Chicago, IL, May 17, 1999.
The Honorable Mary Landrieu,
Hart Building, Room 702,
2nd & C Streets, NE,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Senator Landrieu: The Section of Family Law and the Section of
International Law and Practice of the American Bar Association (ABA)
submit these comments in support of the ratification of the Hague
Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of
Intercountry Adoption (hereinafter the Hague Convention treaty). We are
also submitting comments on proposed implementing legislation for the
Hague Convention treaty. The proposed implementing legislation includes
the Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation Act of 1999 (IACIA)
(S. 682) which has been introduced to the 106th Congress and the
Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA) which was transmitted by President
Clinton along with the Hague Convention treaty to the 105th Congress.
IAA has not yet been transmitted or introduced to the 106th Congress.
    The comments on the legislation are presented on behalf of the
Family and International Law Sections. They have not been approved by
the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors and, accordingly,
should not be construed as representing the policy of the ABA. The
comments, however, are consistent with the ABA's current resolution,
adopted in February 1994, which urges the United States to ratify the
Hague Convention treaty and urges enactment of legislation to implement
the treaty. The resolution states:

          RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that the
        Senate of the United States give its advice and consent to the
        ratification of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children
        and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, the final
        text of which was adopted by the Hague Conference on Private
        International Law on May 29, 1993.

          BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Congress of the United
        States enact implementing legislation to permit the United
        States to participate in this multilateral Convention.

    The Hague Convention is a multilateral treaty that sets out uniform
international legal procedures to govern intercountry adoptions while
at the same time recognizing the freedom of each ratifying country to
establish its own system for implementing the Convention. Intercountry
adoptions occur when a country of origin--the home State of a child--
permits adoptive parents from a receiving nation--the home State of the
parents--to adopt and move a child across international borders. The
Hague Convention is the first treaty to endorse intercountry adoption
as an option for children in need of a family as long as the
internationally established norms of the Hague Convention are followed.
    We urge Congress to ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoption. The Hague Convention treaty and implementing legislation will
provide a legal framework for facilitating intercountry adoptions.
Without the treaty and accompanying implementing legislation, U.S.
citizens eventually may be unable to adopt abroad as more and more
countries ratify the Hague Convention and require other States to be a
party to the treaty for an intercountry adoption to take place.
    Many children, oftentimes in institutions and orphanages, are being
permitted by their country of origin to participate in an intercountry
adoption. U.S. parents are seeking to adopt those children designated
by their country of origin as adoptable. The Hague Convention treaty
standards have thus become crucial to connecting prospective parents
with adoptable children. Without the Hague Convention standards, there
are no internationally recognized norms or procedures to protect the
individual participants involved in the adoption triangle--the child,
the biological parents, and the adoptive parents--or to ensure that
States of origin and receiving States have coordinated with each other
to complete the necessary steps for a final adoption that respects the
legal procedures of each State.
    The treaty is an international bridge between adoptable children
and adopting parents. All members of the adoption triangle are
protected by the rules requiring accreditation of adoption agencies and
registration of those agencies with The Hague Conference on
International Law Permanent Bureau. All parties are protected by the
prohibitions against excessive remuneration in any adoption. All
parties' ability to complete an intercountry adoption is increased by
the creation of Central Authorities--governmental entities in each
participating State responsible for coordinating intercountry
adoptions.
    We believe that any implementing legislation should be consistent
with the Hague Convention treaty principles. Our general comments on
any proposed implementing legislation for the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption are listed below. We also make some specific
comments on the IACIA, introduced as S. 682, and on the proposed IAA,
which was transmitted to the 105th Congress, but which has not been
transmitted or introduced to the 106th Congress.

    1. The Hague Convention treaty requires that the United States
designate a Central Authority. We support the designation of the U.S.
Department of State as the U.S. Central Authority. The Department of
State negotiated the treaty and has experience with assisting U.S.
parents adopting abroad and with coordinating with other States who are
parties to the Hague Convention. This experience should enable the
Department of State as the Central Authority to keep the adoption
paperwork moving so that parents and their adopted children may come
home without unnecessary delays. Likewise, sufficient funds and
resources should be specifically allocated for the performance of Hague
Convention treaty functions. We support a fee retention mechanism that
permits fees charged to be designated specifically for Central
Authority functions.
    2. The Hague Convention treaty legislation may establish a troika
of federal agencies--Department of State, Health and Human Services
(HHS), and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)--to
implement the Hague Convention treaty or just two agencies--Department
of State and INS--may be responsible for implementing the Hague
Convention. Any agencies that are assigned Central Authority functions
should be required to coordinate and consult with each other about
implementing policies and regulations that affect intercountry
adoptions before establishing such policies and regulations.
    In the case of INS, for example, the rule that persons immigrating
show proof of certain vaccinations was passed without considering the
effect on immigrating children. After it was implemented and caused
substantial hardship and anguish for traveling families, the
vaccination requirement was changed for immigrating adopted children.
Many adopted children receive no vaccinations in their country of
origin and could not be safely vaccinated before traveling to the
United States. Although the problem was eventually corrected, this
issue could have been avoided if the effect of new policies on
intercountry adoption was considered before implementation.
    3. IACIA requires that the Central Authority provide reports on the
status of the Hague Convention treaty and implementing legislation to
appropriate congressional oversight committees on a regular basis once
the Hague Convention treaty has been in force for a set period of time.
We support the statutory requirement of providing annual reports on
intercountry adoptions.
    4. An independent advisory or oversight board, consisting of
adoption and international law experts, adoptive parents, agencies and
attorneys working in the field of intercountry adoption, and others who
could provide input and advice on an ongoing basis to the Central
Authority and other federal agencies responsible for implementing the
legislation, should be created. This advisory or oversight board could
ensure that the responsible officials receive timely information about
the implementation of the Hague Convention treaty from the adoption
community.
    5. HHS or the State Department may be delegated the accrediting
functions under the Hague Convention. In preparing regulations on the
accreditation of adoption agencies and approved persons for working in
the field of intercountry adoption, either agency should be statutorily
mandated to give serious consideration to recommendations on
accreditation standards from the appropriate adoption groups and
professionals familiar with intercountry adoption practices and
procedures. We support the IACIA and IAA statutory requirement that
consideration be given to such accreditation recommendations.
    6. Under the Hague Convention treaty, governmental entities that
provide adoption services have a preferred position. State and local
governmental agencies, under Section 203(b)(3) of the proposed IAA, are
to be considered only as approved persons for the purposes of the
accreditation of governmental entities to provide adoption services
under the Hague Convention. IACIA may require state and local agencies
to meet the same accreditation standards as private agencies. The
legislation should be made consistent with the Hague Convention treaty
so those governmental agencies providing adoption services are granted
preferred status as permitted by the Convention.
    7. Under both the IACIA and the proposed IAA, the U.S. Department
of State is designated as the U.S. Central Authority for implementation
of the Hague Convention. The Department of State is responsible for all
``central authority functions,'' which is defined as follows in Section
3(8) of IACIA and in Section 2(f) of IAA:

        Central Authority Function.--The term ``central authority
        functions'' means the duties imposed upon central authorities
        by Chapters III and IV of the (Hague) Convention.

    The definition of 11central authority functions'' is too narrow.
The reference to Chapters III and IV of the Hague Convention is correct
but the other chapters of the Hague Convention should be included in
the definition. For example, Chapters I, II, V, VI, and VII of the
Hague Convention are not included. Unless the designated U.S. Central
Authority is given responsibility for overall Hague Convention
compliance, not just certain portions or chapters of the Hague
Convention, critical Hague Convention requirements will not be clearly
assigned to a federal agency.
    8. The Hague Convention treaty itself does not contain provisions
on voiding adoptions completed under it; however, the proposed IACIA
and IAA contain such provisions in Section 305 on Voiding of Adoptions
for Cause. Under Section 305, an U.S. state court may void a decree,
and must give full effect in the United States to another country's
proceedings vacating an adoption under the Convention, if certain
requirements specified in the statute are met.
    First, the provisions of Section 305(a)(1)(2)(A) assume that in all
cases there would have been birthparent consent or consent by a
relative to the adoption. In abandonment cases, however, consent would
have been properly given at the time of the adoption by an institution
such as an orphanage, and in cases where parental rights were
terminated for abuse or neglect, parties other than the birthparents
would have granted the appropriate consents to the adoption. Thus, the
voiding of adoptions for cause section should recognize other types of
valid consents that were legally recognized under the law of the
country of origin at the time that they were granted. Otherwise, the
mere absence of birthparent consent could be grounds for vacating an
adoption even where such consent was not required at the time the
adoption was granted.
    Second, if provisions on voiding adoptions conflict with individual
U.S. state law, the section does not make clear which law will govern--
federal or state. In particular, the reference to state law in Section
305 (a)(2)(A) does not make clear, which ``state'' law is being
referenced--the U.S. state where the child was adopted or the sending
country from which the child immigrated.
    Third, in Section 305 Voiding of Adoption for Cause, the provision
set out in Section (a)(5), stating that no adoption may be voided after
two years has passed since the adoptive parents obtained custody of the
child, should be modified to provide that the two years start to run
when the parents have legal or physical custody of the child, whichever
occurs first.
    9. A new certification procedure for Hague Convention intercountry
adoptions in Sections 301 and 302 of IACIA and IAA is created. As set
out, the U.S. Central Authority will certify that a particular adoption
is in compliance with the Hague Convention and the U.S. implementing
legislation. This certification is then sent to INS. INS uses the
certification as the basis for issuing a visa for the adopted child to
immigrate to the United States.
    The two sections--Section 301 (b)(l) and 302 (b)(2)--dealing with
this certification procedure are not consistent. Section 301 (b)(1)
requires that the State Department issue the certification (1) when the
Department of State receives appropriate notification from the Central
Authority of the child's country of origin that the adoption is in
compliance with the Hague Convention and (2) when the Department of
State has verified that the requirements of the IACIA or IAA have been
met. Section 302 (b)(2), however, requires the Department of State to
send to INS a Certification that provides that the Central Authority of
the child's country of origin notify the U.S. Central Authority that
the adoption is in accordance with the Hague Convention and IACIA or
IAA as the case may be (emphasis added).
    The issue is whether the Central Authority of the child's country
of origin must notify the Department of State that the adoption
complies with both the Hague Convention and the IACIA or the IAA or
whether the Central Authority of the child's country of origin notifies
the Department of State that the adoption complies with the Hague
Convention and the Department of State determines if the adoption
complies with the U.S. law, i.e., IACIA or IAA. It will be difficult
for the country of origin to represent that the adoption is in
compliance with the U.S. implementing legislation because its access to
the statute and its regulations and knowledge about how to apply the
provisions to a specific case may be limited. The Department of State,
when the United States is the receiving country, would be in a better
position than a foreign jurisdiction to make the determination
necessary for issuing the Hague certification described in IACIA or
IAA.
    10. IACIA and IAA impose criminal penalties in Section 404(c)
Criminal Penalties on any person who knowingly and willfully does the
following:

          (1) provides adoption services in the United States to
        facilitate a Hague adoption without appropriate accreditation
        or approval in accordance with title II;
          (2) makes a false or fraudulent statement or
        misrepresentation of material fact, or offers, gives, solicits
        or accepts improper inducement intended to influence or affect:
                  (A) decisions concerning the accreditation of
                agencies and approval of persons to perform adoption
                services and central authority functions under this
                Act;
                  (B) the relinquishment of parental rights or parental
                consent relating to the adoption of a child within the
                scope of this Act;
                  (C) the decisions or actions of persons and entities
                performing central authority functions pursuant to the
                Convention and this Act.

    The Hague Convention treaty does not require or mandate that any
participating State impose criminal sanctions upon adoption service
providers or any other participants in the intercountry adoption
process. Thus, the criminal sanctions are inconsistent with the Hague
Convention treaty parameters, which were designed to cover the civil
law aspects of intercountry adoption. Criminal sanctions in general may
be unnecessary in light of the Hague Convention treaty's reliance on
the accreditation and approval process to enforce the standards imposed
upon adoption service providers. Also, the term ``improper
inducement,'' which applies to both criminal and civil sanctions,
should be clearly defined. The statute needs to make a clear
distinction between improper inducement that is intended to influence a
specific adoption matter and other types of actions frequently
undertaken by adoption agencies or by adoptive parents, such as making
ongoing charitable contributions to orphanages of medical supplies,
toys, or clothing. These charitable contributions are typically not
intended to induce a specific action by an institution caring for
children. Rather the contribution of supplies by agencies, parent
support groups, and individual parents is designed to assist those
children who remain in the institutions. The statute should clearly
permit humanitarian assistance to go forward without the fear of
criminal sanctions serving to discourage or deter such efforts. We
recommend that a narrow definition of improper inducement be added to
the legislation.
    11. The Hague Convention treaty regulates the adoption of
emigrating U.S. children when individuals residing in another Hague
Convention State seek to adopt a child residing in the United States.
The following comments apply to the case of U.S. children emigrating
for the purpose of intercountry adoption:

  <bullet> There is no requirement in IACIA or IAA for prospective
        adoptive parents, who are residents of another Hague country,
        to include the results of a nationwide criminal background
        check in their home study, before they are permitted to
        finalize an adoption of a U.S. child who will emigrate after
        the adoption is completed. Our recommendation is that a
        nationwide criminal background check from the receiving State
        of the prospective adoptive parents should be required before
        they are permitted to adopt an emigrating U.S. child. Certain
        criminal offenses, in particular child abuse or neglect or
        spousal abuse, should be considered grounds for prohibiting the
        intercountry adoption.
  <bullet> The Hague Convention treaty, in Article 4 (b), provides that
        an adoption shall take place only if the competent authorities
        of the State of origin ``have determined, after possibilities
        for placement of the child within the State of origin have been
        given due consideration, that an intercountry adoption is in
        the child's best interests.'' (emphasis added). Section 303
        (b)(1) (B) of IAA requires that a determination be made that
        the child ``cannot expeditiously be placed for adoption in the
        United States.'' (emphasis added).

    IAA essentially proposes the policy that U.S. born children should
        not be adopted by residents of a receiving State, unless the
        child cannot be adopted expeditiously in the United States.
        Elsewhere, the proposed implementing statute authorizes the
        making of regulations changing procedures for adoption by
        relatives, but it is not clear that this will include a
        preference for relatives where the child could be placed
        expeditiously with nonrelatives who are U.S. residents. The
        statute should permit a state court judge to give due
        consideration to an adoption by relatives or for other parties
        with a ``significant relationship'' with the child (such as
        those who have been responsible for the child for a significant
        period of time, or were named in the parent's will).

    IACIA, on the other hand, requires that 12 months must elapse since
        the accredited person made efforts to place the child in the
        U.S. before a child may be placed in a permanent home in
        another Hague country. IACIA also requires that in every case a
        determination be made in accordance with the federal Adoption
        and Safe Families Act of 1997 that the child cannot be placed
        in the U.S.

    Overall, we recommend that any implementing legislation mirror the
        language in Article 4 (b) of the Hague Convention treaty so
        that ``due consideration'' is given to the opportunity for a
        child to be placed in the U.S. The 12-month automatic wait
        period may not be in a child's best interest in every case and
        the requirement that there be a finding that the child cannot
        be placed expeditiously in the U.S. likewise may not be in the
        child's best interest in all cases. The due consideration
        standard from the Hague Convention permits the state court
        judge to better consider the individual circumstances of a
        particular child.

  <bullet> For emigrating children, it would be useful to clarify that
        provisions in Article 16 of the Hague Convention, stating that
        a Central Authority of the State of origin shall ``give due
        consideration to a child's ethnic, religious and cultural
        background'' is not intended to conflict with provisions of the
        federal Multiethnic Placement Act prohibiting delaying or
        denying an adoption on the basis of race or ethnic background.
  <bullet> Under both IACIA and IAA, state court judges retain the
        discretion to issue an adoption decree for an emigrating child,
        and in those cases, the courts should be encouraged by statute
        or regulation to appoint counsel for the child involved in an
        intercountry adoption from the United States.
  <bullet> The provision in IACIA Section 303 (b)(1)(B) effectively
        prohibits single persons from adopting emigrating U.S. children
        and unnecessarily limits the opportunities for children to be
        adopted. We recommend that IAA Section 303 (b)(1) be adopted
        and that single persons be permitted to adopt emigrating U.S.
        children.

    12. The Hague Convention, in Article 3, covers intercountry
adoptions between participating States for children before they reach
the age of eighteen years old. As proposed in both statutes, children
over the age of sixteen will continue to not be eligible to immigrate
under the rules governing visas for children adopted by U.S. citizens
abroad. Any legislation should be consistent with the treaty so that
immigrating adopted children up to the age of eighteen may participate
in an intercountry adoption.
    13. Some sending countries do not grant a final decree of adoption;
however, they do grant to the adoptive parents legal custody and
permission to immigrate for the purpose of adoption--a process known as
``simple adoption''. Neither IACIA nor IAA say what effect, if any, a
foreign authority's grant of custody or certification of availability
for adoption should have in an U.S. court. By its silence, the
legislation as written almost invites de novo reconsideration of all
the substantive and procedural aspects of the child's adoptability that
were made by the sending country. The statute does not specify what law
should apply to questions like the timing of the relinquishment. Any
implementing legislation should at least say that the foreign
authority's determination regarding adoptability is entitled to
presumption of validity, and that the law of the nation of origin
governs on issues of relinquishment and availability for adoption.
    14. The avenues for administrative review of adverse action in the
accreditation of agencies and approved persons are non-existent in the
statutes. The implementing legislation should contain an administrative
review process for those agencies or individuals who are adversely
affected during the accreditation process. The current statutory
structure of providing only judicial review is not adequate.
Administrative review procedures are important because (1) a regulatory
agency is usually better equipped than a federal court to obtain and
review information needed to assess adverse actions at a reasonable
cost, and (2) the dockets in some federal courts are crowded, and a
civil action seeking judicial review may take a very long time to
process.
    15. Section 105 (b)(1) of IAA and Section 103 (d)(1) of IACIA
establish a case registry on ``all adoptions involving immigration into
the United States, regardless of whether the adoption occurs under the
Convention''. This section implies that data on any adoption involving
immigration, including those of any person who is immigrating to the
U.S. with adopted children, will be included. The registry is
presumably intended to cover just intercountry adoptions under section
101 (f) and (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, i.e., those
where the U.S. parents adopt a child from a sending country regardless
of whether the country is a party to the Hague Convention. The statute
should make clear what adoptions are covered by the registry.
    16. The Hague Convention, in Article 31, requires that personal
data gathered or transmitted under the Convention shall be used only
for the purposes for which such data were gathered or transmitted. The
proposed legislation, which establishes certain monitoring and registry
procedures, should make clear that the intent of the legislation is to
be consistent with Article 16 of the treaty. Likewise, in Section 203
(b)(1)(C) of IAA and Section 203 (b)(1)(D) of IACIA a reference should
be made to require accredited agencies to maintain such records and
reports and information in accordance with applicable federal and state
privacy laws.
    17. Any fees established by INS, HHS, or the Department of State
for implementing the Hague Convention should be set via a rulemaking
procedure. In particular, the fee amounts to be set under Section 204
(d)(2) of IAA or Section 202 (d)(2) of IACIA should be subject to a
notice and comment rulemaking procedure under the Administrative
Procedure Act.
    18. Under Section 205 (d)(1) of IAA and Section 204 (c)(1) of
IACIA, a change should be made so that it is clear that agencies and
adoptive parents can seek judicial review of adverse accrediting
decisions. These sections should also be modified so that the reference
to an adverse action by the federal agency responsible for selecting
the accrediting body includes the cancellation or failure to designate
an accrediting entity or an action whereby the accrediting body fails
to accredit an agency or person for practicing in the field of
intercountry adoption.
    19. Both proposed bills do not make clear whether accrediting
agencies must renew their accreditation. The implementing legislation
or regulations need to establish provisions and timeframes for renewal
of accreditation of agencies and approved persons. An accreditation
renewal process for agencies and approved persons would help to ensure
that the standards imposed by the Hague Convention are met on an
ongoing basis.
    20. Both IACIA and IAA require the Secretary of State to monitor
the rate of disruption of all intercountry adoptions. The term
``disruption'' is not statutorily defined, and the purpose for which
such data will be collected is not stated.
    21. The reference in Section 302 (b)(2) of IAA to paragraph (b)(1),
(g) or (h) of section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
appears to be incorrect; the reference is probably intended to be to
(b)(1)(G) or (H).
    22. The provision in Section 303 (b)(3)(C) of IACIA and IAA
regarding the responsibilities of accredited agencies providing
intercountry adoption services in the case of an emigrating child
should proscribe that the documentation and information that a U.S.
Central Authority may require an accrediting body to provide must be
identified in published regulations so that agencies know in advance
what specific information must be sent on each individual case.
    23. Under both IACIA and IAA, U.S. states may impose additional
requirements upon Hague accredited agencies providing services for
emigrating children. Any such additional requirements should be
required by statute to be transmitted to the U.S. Central Authority,
and the U.S. Central Authority should be required to communicate such
requirements to the Hague Conference Permanent Bureau. Then prospective
adoptive parents from other countries will have ready access to
information regarding the practices of U.S. states.
    24. IACIA, unlike IAA, does not permit individual persons, such as
attorneys or social workers, to be accredited to provide adoption
services under the Hague Convention as ``approved persons,'' a term
defined in Section 2(d) of IAA. We recommend that IAA standards
permitting approved persons, not just accredited agencies, to provide
adoption services be included in the Hague Convention implementing
legislation.
    24. We support the changes that both IACIA and IAA make to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) so that adopted children from
Hague participating countries of origin may obtain an U.S. visa in
cases where the child's birthparents voluntarily consented to the
adoption by the U.S. parents. We endorse the modifications to the INA
that make it possible for more children adopted by parents from the
U.S. to obtain a visa to enter the U.S.
    25. We recommend that the implementing legislation include
provisions permitting a child to be granted U.S. citizenship upon
completion of an adoption so that U.S. adoptive parents are not
required to apply for such approval separately.

    Our letter does not include comments on each and every aspect of
possible implementing legislation for the Hague Convention treaty. We
do anticipate, however, that additional comments on any various
proposed versions of implementing legislation will be submitted as the
need arises.
    In conclusion, we recognize the historical importance of this
landmark treaty. Never before has intercountry adoption received such a
positive endorsement. Many prospective U.S. parents fight their way
through the arduous process of intercountry adoption. Oftentimes they
call upon a Senator or Congressman to assist in ending delays or
unforeseen glitches. In the meantime, children who are eligible for
international adoption wait to be united with loving, adoptive
families. We support the Hague Convention treaty and implementing
legislation that uses sensible and practical legal procedures to
encourage and facilitate the intercountry adoption process.
    Our Sections appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Hague
Convention treaty and to provide input and suggestions on implementing
legislation for the treaty.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                        Maurice Jay Kutner,
                                      Chair, Section of Family Law.
                                         William M. Hannay,
                  Chair, Section of International Law and Practice.
                               __________
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Honorable Chairman Helms, Thank you for the opportunity to testify
at the hearing on ``S. 682.'' I was so proud of the way you chaired the
meeting. You are my idea of a true gentleman, a trait that is not
always considered necessary in our modern society, yet one I believe to
be the foundation of civilization. You make people feel valued, while
getting to the heart of the issue.
    You asked us to comment on our idea of useful disclosure laws: My
analysis is rather blunt, but I trust you will understand my motives
and use it to benefit the children.
    Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
Adoption agencies are dependent on foreign facilitators and have
        limited control
    Unfortunately, in the last few years, the ``tail has started
wagging the dog''. Since we do not live overseas, it is necessary to
hire foreign nationals to do the majority of the work. Even though we
pay them, they are still independent. They lack the business skills,
which we take for granted in a free-enterprise society (such as time
management, keeping appointments, performing tasks in a reasonable time
frame, and providing an acceptable level of service).
    At worst, they have no loyalty or sense of ethics (as we perceive
ethics) and sell their service to the highest bidder. Since their
service is the adoption of children--well, you can see the obvious
outcome.
    If I offer a facilitator reasonable payment for his work, but he
can get hundreds or thousands of dollars elsewhere, he will be gone. If
I ask for complete medicals, great videos, detailed descriptions of the
child, and fast, reliable and honest service; he may very well work for
someone who has easier requirements--or none.
    Although, we struggle to provide adequate service to families, it
is getting more difficult. The last time I was in Russia, at least six
people knocked on my door to ask if they could work for Christian World
Adoption. They had no experience in adoption, but where drawn by the
perceived profits. They asked ridiculous fees and promised incredible
things. Although we were experienced enough to turn them away, others
are not.
    If these individuals are motivated strictly by money, and not
controlled by ethical, knowledgeable agencies, all sorts of abuses
occur. Officials may be bribed, medical records ``fixed,'' and children
offered to one family, then taken away when another offers more money.
In some cases, children have even been abducted.
    The abuses are rampant and growing. Eventually, it will close
adoption in Russia, as it has in so many other countries. Russians view
adoption as a business because of the money paid, and believe that
capitalism is evil. Since birth, they are taught that capitalism allows
the rich to abuse the poor and that the middle class does not exist.
Every time we bring Russians to the U.S. to visit, they are amazed at
how well our society functions and realize that they have been lied to
all of their lives.
    The more adoption turns into a competitive business, the more
difficult it is to help the children. Distrust grows and corruption
flourishes.
    China was beginning to have this problem three years ago. The
government was wise enough to outlaw private facilitators and required
that all agencies work through their central authority. They receive
the parents' dossier, match a child to them,, and approve all of the
foreign adoptions in the country. The criteria are the same for all
families, and the fees are the same.
Foreign facilitators and or government officials have limited control/
        authority to provide adequate services
    Even when we have foreign facilitators who are good at their job,
they are limited in what they can do. These folks are trying to survive
under communist regimes or democratic rulers who are really dictators;
controlling their countries through oppression, fear or military might.
    They have seen friends and families murdered for opposing the
government--they understand that safely means anonymity. They are often
afraid to appear too cooperative, as they may be accused of taking
bribes and ``selling'' children. Many orphanage directors, caregivers,
judges, doctors, and government officials are not paid to perform, they
are paid to follow orders and not cause trouble (and often they are
paid poorly, or not at all). They are NOT motivated to do the extra
work necessary to complete an adoption.
    Their priority is finding enough to eat and keeping safe and warm,
not doing extra paper work for demanding rich Americans.
How do we encourage cooperation and limit corruption?
    First, and foremost it is critical that the facilitators not be
able to play adopting parents against each other. As long as a foreign
facilitator can refer a child to any American who holds a Home Study,
they will act as ``free agents.'' While competition might be good in
some industries, it has terrible consequences in international
adoption. There are far more parents who want healthy, Caucasian
infants than there are children available. It drives up cost, and
allows facilitators to do substandard work, or worse.
As ``S. 682'' is written, a parent can adopt without using an
        accredited agency
    I fear that if the Hague Implementing Legislation is passed as it
is, current practices will NOT change.
    Thousands of social workers, exempt from accreditation under the
Hague, are allowed to write Home Studies. With any Home Study, a parent
has the right to adopt directly from a foreign facilitator without
using an accredited agency.
    Many agencies, while well intentioned, do not have the budget or
the staff to travel, train, monitor, manage and truly understand the
laws and system of the child's birth country. They are at the mercy of
the facilitators overseas and do not provide parents with the
protection they need.
Facilitators live in the U.S. and act as agencies without any licensing
    Incredibly, there are a large number of people living in the U.S.
who are acting as adoption agencies WITHOUT ANY licensing. They
advertise adoption services on the Internet, in Adoptive Families of
America magazine, in newspapers and appear at trade shows. I personally
know of several, as does Maureen Evans, Director of JCICS. You are
welcome to call us for details. They are not attorneys, and some have
even been denied state licensing. The parents do not realize that these
people are not licensed and the various State Departments of Social
Services are too overwhelmed to do anything.
    I know of one Vietnamese mother and daughter who were convicted of
stealing humanitarian aid intended for orphans, who have been denied
licensing in South Carolina, Las Vegas, and Pennsylvania and who have a
class action suit pending against them by angry parents. DSS in SC has
asked me to report their activities and has sent letters to desist; yet
they continue to operate, year in and year out.
    It is very discouraging to have these individuals sully the
reputation of agencies, while reputable organizations are working their
hearts out to provide excellent services.
We must make it mandatory that parents process their adoptions through
        an accredited agency
    Accreditation is a rigorous, process. The standards used by COA
(Council on Accreditation) were written by experts in the international
adoption community based on the Hague. They are relevant and demand
full disclosure of fees and services in every step of the adoption
process. Although nothing is foolproof, I can not think of a better way
to establish and monitor sound practice. Accreditation requires proof
of quality case management, ethical practice and sound financial
status.
    I truly believe that accreditation will provide better consumer
protection, because it looks at the total picture and requires agencies
to function in an ethical manner, using sound business and children's
welfare practices.
    If you would like an outline of the standards used to review and
accredit adoption agencies by the Council on Accreditation, I would be
glad to provide it.
            Sincerely,
                                   Tomilee Harding,
              Executive Director, Christian World Adoption.
                               __________

      Statement Submitted by the National Council of Birthmothers

                   keep foreign adoption records open
    We urge you to kill this bill that would close forever adoption
records of those who are foreign born.
    This is a country that prides itself on its freedoms--and welcomes
people from all over the world who come to be a part of this land of
opportunity.
    How can this land of freedom and opportunity--extend its hand to
the peoples of the world and use that same hand to slap the face of
adopted people who are foreign born?
    We are only beginning to see the tip of the ice berg when it comes
to the horrors that have been visited upon the people's of other lands
when it comes to foreign adoptions. Is it any wonder that Russia,
India, Korea, China, and other countries are re-examining their
policies on foreign adoption--some in fact closing their borders to
foreign adoption?
    Our own STATE DEPARTMENT has travelers warnings for Americans
traveling in Guatemala--NOT TO BE SEEN WITH GUATEMALAN CHILDREN as this
could be very dangerous for them--due to the deplorable record of the
``American adoption'' industry operating in that country. An industry
that preys on the poor of that country, that steals children from their
families--and presents them to unsuspecting American families.
    This type of activity goes on in many countries around the world.
We read of illegal adoption rings and their practices--involving
foreign countries and individuals within the United States regularly.
    The sealing of foreign adoption records will only help to protect
the individuals and groups involved in these illegal activities by
hiding the record of their crimes.
    Sealed adoption records are a practice peculiar to the United
States. The majority of the world have open records--in that an adopted
person when they reach adulthood--is given access to the records of
their birth.
    It is accepted as a matter of course that an individual has a right
to government held records pertaining to themselves.
    In the past few decades we have come to realize the tragedy of
sealed adoption records and the folly of leaving the dispensing of such
information up to the whim of third parties. We have seen adoptees die
from lack of medical information--when such medical information was in
the hands of adoption agencies who refused to pass along the
information--or judges who have decided medical emergency was not
``good cause'' to open the records. We have information in case upon
case of government officials willfully defying the law in not providing
critical information to adoptees, adoptive parents, and birthparents.
    The American Academy of Pediatrics has the following in their
Policy Statement:

          Recent adoption research and considerable anecdotal evidence
        challenge the wisdom of maintaining permanent separation of
        mature adoptees and their biological families. [2-6] The
        interests of each member of the adoption triad often change
        over time. As adoptees reach adolescence, their interest in
        learning about their biological families frequently increases.
        This is almost always unrelated to the degree of stability of
        their adoptive family relationship and is usually seen as a
        healthy and normal aspect of their personality development.
        Concomitantly the interest of birth parents in preserving their
        anonymity may diminish over time. Several studies of birth
        mothers show that they frequently reconsider and remain
        uncomfortable with the decision they made to surrender their
        child. [2,5,6] Often their feelings of guilt, grief, and loss
        are unresolved, and often they believe that their sense of loss
        might be lessened by knowing what actually happened to their
        child. Sometimes the third member of the triad, the adoptive
        parents, may feel threatened by the desires of their adopted
        children to search for birth parents when these children become
        adults and begin to develop their own independent lives, [5,6]
        but often adoptive parents support their children's efforts to
        search for their birth parents.
          As more and more adult adoptees began to challenge
        confidential court records and search for their birth parents,
        support groups and advocate organizations evolved to help
        organize searches and to lobby for less restrictive state laws.
          The actual number of adult adoptees who search for
        information about their birth parents is unknown but thought to
        be a small (yet recently increasing) percentage of total
        adoptees, and the motives of those who search are quite varied.
        [6] Some are at risk for certain medical problems in which
        knowledge of a family medical history is important. Others wish
        to have children and want to know more of their genetic and
        medical history. (All states require a medical and genetic
        history to be obtained at the time of adoption, but these
        histories are often incomplete and inaccurate.) Other adult
        adoptees just believe that they have a right to find out their
        birth names and family heritage to fill the void that makes
        them feel incomplete and separates them from their pasts.
          Adoption researchers are learning about reunions between
        adoptees and the birth parents and the impact these reunions
        have on each member of the adoption triad. [5-7] During the
        past decade, there seems to have been a change in general
        attitude among adoption professionals towered search and
        reunion. Previously the idea of searching for one's birth
        family was seen as either harmful and/or neurotic. Now such
        searches and reunions are often seen as healthy and a helpful
        endeavor for all concerned.

    With all we have learned about adoption and its present and future
implication for all the families involved--let us not take a step
backward into the Dark Ages by passing a law that forever renders
foreign born adoptees to the permanent status of second class citizens
in our country.
    Let our shores still continue to represent the free and the brave.
                                        Teri Leber,
               President, National Council of Birthmothers.
                               __________
                                        Rosalind Maya Lama,
                                              Santa Cruz, CA 95062.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN: S. 682--TESTIMONY

    Dear Senator Helms: Kindly accept this testimony regarding S. 682,
a bill intended to implement the provisions of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption.
    I would like to point out that Section 401, containing sealed
records and secrecy provisions, is in violation of the United States
Constitution, in particular the 14th Amendment. It also violates the
Freedom of Information Act--a restriction normally imposed only with
respect to matters of national security. Secrecy and sealing of records
of children brought into the U.S. for the purpose of adoption is
moreover an encouragement to various types of fraud, crime and
violations of civil and human rights. Such secrecy is not in the best
interest of children, adult individuals who are affected by it, or the
State. It is in the best interest of adoption agencies and other
persons who are employed in the adoption and foster care industries,
because it assures a steady stream of children who may be treated as a
commodity. The American public has shown an interest in the conditions
under which consumer goods are produced, such as those manufactured
using child labor, prison labor, and under slave-type working
conditions. The public also has an interest in knowing the origins of
children brought into this country for adoption. Not knowing ones own
origins and history can have tragic and far-reaching consequences for
individuals and society as a whole.
    It is a fact that children are obtained through various means
which, if they saw the light of day, could not be legally or morally
permitted. It is a fact that many children who have been brought into
this country for the purpose of adoption end up in foster or
institutional care due to emotional damage stemming from the conditions
in which they were kept prior to entering this country. It is also a
fact that there are at least 500,000 children currently in foster or
institutional care in the U.S. Many of these are free for adoption but
are unwanted due to not being of a preferred color or age. However,
even these rejected children provide a livelihood for employees of
adoption agencies and the various departments of social services that
provide foster and institutional care. It is big business.
    The U.S. is the single biggest recipient of foreign children
brought in for the purpose of adoption. The children have included
those who were kidnapped, bought or coerced from poor women, those who
have been abandoned due to draconian legislation regarding reproductive
rights in their home country, and the victims of racial and religious
oppression.
    Human beings have natural curiosity and a need to know their own
origins. Children are not a blank slate on which parents, whether
natural or adoptive, can write their own script. Whatever the reason,
psychological, medical, legal or simply in the pursuit of satisfaction,
people in this country have the right to personal information regarding
themselves, and to be treated equally under the law.
    I have had personal experience with the closed records adoption
system. In November of 1959 I gave birth to a son, Marcus, in NYC. I
was 16 years old, a senior at the prestigious H.S. of Music and Art.
His father was a fellow student who had graduated in 1958. We had been
high school sweethearts and intended to marry, but this was
objectionable to my parents due to racial differences. We had no desire
or intention to give up our son. My son's paternal grandparents
expressed their wish to take him home but were prevented from doing so
by the Bureau of Child Welfare and an adoption agency that had become
involved due to my parents efforts. I was able to obtain a record of
the case kept by the Administration for Children's Services through a
FOIL request, as well as some relevant court documents pertaining to my
prosecution as a delinquent. I was told that if I signed surrender
papers I would not be prosecuted. As I refused, my parents and a
sectarian social service agency connected with the adoption agency
brought charges against me with hopes of having me committed to a
mental asylum for the purpose of terminating my parental rights. At
that time unwed fathers did not have parental rights. My son's father,
braving the possibility of being prosecuted for statutory rape, signed
paternity papers and paid for unwanted, unnecessary and inhumane foster
care provided by the adoption agency and the Bureau of Child Welfare.
In fact, we did not know, and still do not know, where our son was kept
during the time I supposedly had full legal custody, according to the
documents of the BCW.
    It is not necessary at this time to go into the details of the
manner in which a signature on the various documents of surrender was
coerced. The end result was the total psychological destruction of my
son, who died by his own hand at age twenty. Unlike most biracial
children, who probably made up the majority of institutionalized
children at the time, my son was adopted. The adoptive mother, when I
finally found her in 1996, asked me where I had been when she needed
me, and stated that she felt the outcome (of my son's life) would have
been different if he had had the support of his ``true'' parents. She
told me my son continually asked for his parents from the time he
entered adolescence. The adoption was a disaster for all concerned,
except for the numerous persons whose livelihood depended on
terminations of parental rights, foster and institutional care,
casework, psychiatry and adoption. The adoptive mother had been
Superintendent of Children's Institutions in NYC. Her sister-in-law
told me she ``found'' my son in an institution.
    The records I obtained through the FOIL request had been altered,
with numerous additions, deletions, and false quotes and statements in
order to bring the record up to the minimum standards of legality for
the time. A number of these falsifications, including some in my court
record, can easily be verified. This includes a notation on the court
record of my school grade, given as 8th, suspended, in order to give
the impression of feeble-mindedness. I never attended the 8th grade, as
I skipped it, had completed my junior year in high school, been
accepted at the college of my choice, and had taken medical leave from
my senior year.
    I will be available to supply further information regarding my own
case and my position that secrecy in adoption practice encourages
various types of cruel and illegal activities which do not serve a
civilized society. I object to adoption triad members such as myself,
adopted children and adults, and adoptive and foster parents not being
called as witnesses in this serious matter.
            Yours truly,
                                Rosalind Maya Lama.
                               __________
                               James C. and Dawn M. Dooley,
                                            Fayetteville, AR 72704.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN: S. 682--TESTIMONY
    Dear Senators: It is a great concern to me that you have decided to
sponsor S. 682. As adoptive parents, we cannot see where this provision
will benefit anyone related to international adoption. For ourselves,
we feel that our child should have the right to know and find his birth
parents if he so desires. By passing this provision, you are
effectively taking that right away from them. There is also a greater
medical precedence in that if a donor organ is needed or other life
threatening situation, this provision will not allow the adoptee to
gain the information to allow them to continue living. In essence, a
death warrant!
    When we decided to adopt internationally, it was not by some
flippant thought or impulse decision. We spent many months deciding if
we wanted to go international or domestic, what country we felt was
best for us. Now based upon our decision our son would be persecuted
for being adopted.
    I am further appalled at the decision to only allow members of the
adoption industry to testify. Do we as American citizens no longer have
a voice in what is passed into law? I propose a lottery of adoptive
parents be allowed to testify at this hearing. I am sure it would shed
much light on the proper and correct provision for adoptees.
    I am trying to decide if this provision was just poorly written or
does it speak of possible racial prejudice. I would hope that it was
merely a oversight of proofreading that caused this great injustice.
    Our son, Elijah Lee, came home on April 16, 1999 and is now at the
wonderful age of 1 year. He does not know about this provision and as
the best parents we can be, are speaking for him on his behalf.
    We finally urge you to not sponsor S. 682, Section 401, which goes
against ALL internationally adopted children!
            Sincerely,
                                   James C. Dooley,
                                    Dawn M. Dooley.
                               __________
                                       Marylee Munson Oddo,
                                              Charleston, Illinois.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN: S. 682--TESTIMONY

    Dear Sirs and Madam: After reviewing the upcoming legislation of
S.682 on Intercountry Adoption, I must strongly argue against it's
intent and content, especially section 401. As I interpret it, it
absolutely negates what the original Hague Convention Intercountry
Adoption proposes.
    And, Ms. Landrieu, I am quite shocked that you would support such a
move. I was at the International Gathering of the First Generation of
Korean Adoptees in Washington, D.C., as were you, and I find it
particularly disturbing that you, of all people, would support such a
turn. One of the more topical issues discussed in the formal Adoptee
discussion groups was the need and desire to search for information
regarding our biological past. Though many of us Adoptees may not wish
to seek out this type of information AT THIS TIME, we may wish to in
the future. Lacking the desire to search does not equal lack of desire
for freedom of disclosure.
    I am also dismayed to hear that the petition I signed at the
Gathering, in support for the Hague Convention, was modified with the
before mentioned changes UNBEKNOWNST to me. I forthwith withdraw my
previous support.
    I feel the Federal government should not be maintaining
confidential files on American citizens solely because they were
adopted from outside the U.S. All citizens deserve to be accorded equal
dignity and respect under the law. Specifically restricting the ability
of international adoptees to access their personal files and exempting
them from the Freedom of Information Act is discriminatory and un-
American.
    A double standard for adoptee rights is unacceptable. While states
like Oregon and around the country are moving toward opening records to
adoptees, S. 682 threatens to make these gains meaningless for
international adoptees. S. 682 goes against the national trend toward
greater openness.
    Many foreign countries, such as Korea, have open records. Yet, S.
682 would perpetually seal the records of adoptees like myself that
enter the U.S. from those countries. We legally lose our right to our
identities and knowledge about our heritage when we become Americans.
Our nation should lead in protection of these rights rather than
following these other nations.
    The purpose of the Hague Convention is to mandate accountability
and integrity in the international adoption process, and to provide
minimal standards for protecting the rights of adoptees, including the
right of adoptees to information on their identities and heritage. But
Section 401 of S. 682 appears to go against both the intent and letter
of the Convention.
    I personally am trying to find out more information about my
biological past. I have flown to Korea and visited the site of my
former orphanage as well as searched for records that may uncover any
information regarding my birth family and personal history.
Unfortunately, I have uncovered so very little at this time. As an
older adoptee adopted over 33 years ago, searching is a long,
difficult, and often expensive task. But one I feel well worth all my
resources and efforts. Please do not limit or terminate my ability to
search.
    I am a Korean adoptee and will support only legislation that:

          (1) Acknowledges that all adult adoptees deserve their
        records;
          (2) All adoptees deserve medical information;
          (3) All records should be maintained and preserved;
          (4) All adoptees have the right to their identities and
        knowledge about their heritage;
          (5) Adoptees should have the right to participate in the
        drafting of such legislation, as opposed to those who have no
        personal knowledge of the situation; and
          (6) Senators should recognize and respect that international
        adoption is a lifelong process and enable legislation that
        reflects that.

    Let me finish by saying that I hope that this is legislation that
will happen only after each of you has taken serious time to explore
all realms of it and particularly of the children involved who will
become adults. I would also like to add that I do fully support the
Hague Convention, but in its original form and intent.
    Please do not consider only the adoption agencies, birth-parents,
and the adoptive parents for input. Our perspective has been
overlooked. Please consider the perspective of the adoptee as this
directly affects us. I ask you to talk with ADULT adoptees. We also
have first-hand knowledge and experiences on these issues.
    Please understand that this is important and it affects people's
lives. Please forward this to interested parties. Thank you for your
time and consideration on this important matter.
            Sincerely,
                               Marylee Munson Oddo.
                               __________
                                              Tracy Houser,
                                              Santa Rosa, CA 95401.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, D.C 20510.

ATTN. S. 682--TESTIMONY

    Dear Mr. Helms: As an adoptee who has been reunited with my
birthparents for almost 7 years now, I find the possibility of S. 682
passing totally disturbing.
    Adoption, contrary to what you may believe, isn't just about a
young, unwed woman giving birth to an unwanted child and ``getting rid
of the problem'' by giving it to two wonderful and loving parents to
raise it as their own. Somehow, the world loves to paint the fairy tail
of the grateful little adoptee living happily ever after never
wondering where he or she came from. Almost as if the fact that they
were given up unselfishly by their ``first mother'' just erases the
fact that she ever existed.
    I don't know why, or how this myth ever evolved, but it's the most
ludicrous thing I have ever encountered. Where society got the idea
that you could just take a child from it's mother in the name of
``what's best for the child,'' forge a so-called ``birth certificate''
by erasing the child's natural parents name, and adding in the adoptive
parents instead (and assume this child will never have a need to know
who they are and where they came from) is beyond me.
    We, as adoptees, deserve the same rights as any other person who
walks on this earth. Most people in the United States have the freedom
of knowing who their natural parents are (because they are raised by
them), know what their nationality is, know who they look like, and
know their families medical history. We, as adoptees, don't have these
rights. Somehow this was deemed ``fair'' by someone in The Stone Ages
and now we have to live with this even in this day in age.
    I found my birthparents by going through an ``underground.'' I paid
$150 to find my birthmother's last name, and I searched on my own and
found her 3 months later. It is so absurd that I had to actually pay
someone to find out what was rightfully mine to begin with. I don't
understand why we as adoptees are the one's that suffer the most when
the whole ``adoption process'' is supposedly in the ``best interest of
the child.'' It's almost as if we have to suffer for the
irresponsibility of our mothers.
    Although I had a great childhood with parents that love me dearly,
my adoption affects me on a deeper level that I can't put into words.
To know that there are still people out there who seriously think it's
better to keep a child birthright a secret, regardless of where they
were born, makes me sick. Just because a child is born outside the
U.S., and is adopted into the U.S. doesn't mean their feelings will be
any different from mine. EVERY adoptee should know from the earliest
time possible where they came from, who there natural parents are and
what their names are, and how they can contact their natural parents
when the time is right FOR THE CHILD. It's time for the lies to stop,
and to truly start making the adoptive child's best interests a
priority. In terms of ``best interests,'' the ranking at this point in
time in the adoption triad goes the adoptive parent first (keeping the
child's adoption records sealed so that the adoptive parent will not be
threatened by a birthmother or birthfather butting into the child's
life at any time). Second, the birthmother (keeping the child a secret
depending on her circumstance).
    And third, the adoptive child (last on the list of priorities of
course, since we never had any say in the matter to begin with).
    In closing, I would like to say that I am not anti-adoption. I
believe as a last resort, in cases of abuse, etc., that adoption may be
in the best interest of the child. However, even so, ALL PEOPLE
wherever they are born, MUST know who they are!!! This is totally
unacceptable! Adoptees have needs like everyone else. We are not some
kind of caged animal that you can control as you see fit. It seems
everyone who is NOT adopted comes off as an expert in adoptee
psychology where in reality they truly do not have a clue as to how we
feel or what's right.
    If this bill passes, it will be a big mistake. A child born outside
the U.S. is entitled to know who they are.
    They have the right to find the woman who gave birth to them when
they feel they are ready. Every human being should have the right to
know their mother. By taking that right away, you violate everything
this country stands for.
            Sincerely,
                                      Tracy Houser.
                               __________
                                             Ellen Garlich,
                                          Christiansburg, VA 24073.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN. S.682--TESTIMONY

    Dear Senator: I am writing in opposition to S. 682--Intercountry
Adoptions Convention Implementation Act of 1999. In particular, I am
concerned about the adoption secrecy provisions contained in Title IV,
Section 401.
    First of all I would like to express my concern that people
affected by adoption, such as myself, and international adoption in
particular, have not been invited to testify on this bill. Instead, I
understand that only adoption industry professionals were asked to
present testimony at scheduled hearings for S. 682. Americans who have
experienced adoption firsthand, whether as adoptees, adoptive parents,
or birthparents, are in a position to provide meaningful feedback which
should not be ignored in the drafting of adoption related legislation.
    I am an adoptee who has been searching for medical information for
over 17 years. My adoption was handled privately and arranged by a
doctor. It baffles me why no one, especially the doctor, found it
important to get a medical history to pass on. It could have been done
with no identifying information given out to my adoptive parents or
myself. It angers me that as a tax paying citizen I am not entitled to
information pertaining to myself. I am told that it is to protect the
rights of the child. I am no longer a child. I have an ailment that the
doctors can't pinpoint, and with no medical history it's like finding a
needle in a haystack. My doctor has even written the state to request
copies of my files, but to no avail. Even my adoptive parents have
written letters, but get the same response. I have children that would
benefit from knowing their mothers medical history. Unless your are an
adoptee, you can't even relate to what it is like to have no heritage
to pass on to your children, to not even know your nationality or your
genealogy. For a school project, my daughter was to see how far they
could track her ancestors. She couldn't do it on my side because I
don't even know it. It's embarrassing to tell your children ``I don't
know who my ancestors are'', its embarrassing to constantly be asked
what nationality I am and say ``I don't know''. I have nothing to link
myself to. It's like an empty void that can't be filled. According to
the Freedom of Information Act, I have a right to any information on
myself, but this law is ignored as well when it comes to adoption. I
should not have to spend thousands of dollars to have a private
investigator find out information that should be my basic rights as an
American tax paying citizen.
    I ask you to prayerfully reconsider this bill. S. 682, as proposed,
not only short-changes adoptees, but also goes against the intent of
the Hague Convention, which it claims to ``enable''. Consideration
needs to be given to the rights of the adult adoptees to documents held
on them by the government.
    Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my testimony. I
hope that before you even consider passing this bill, that you will
agree to hear testimony from our side, not just testimony from so
called professionals that have not experienced firsthand the effects of
adoption.
            Sincerely,
                                     Ellen Garlich.
                               __________
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
    Dear Senator Helms: As an adult Korean adoptee, I write to you out
of a profound concern that the privacy provisions in S. 682--the
Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation Act of 1999 that you
and Sen. Mary Landrieu introduced earlier this year--may actually
contradict both the letter and the spirit of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption that the bill is ostensibly intended to help
implement. The most worrisome provisions in S. 682 are Section 401
(b)(1) and 401 (2)(abc):
401 (b)(1) Consent Required.
    Except as provided in subsection (d), identifying information
contained in Convention adoption records shall not be disclosed.
401 (2) Application of Privacy Act.
    a. An individual, or an individual's parent or guardian, who would
otherwise have a right to access any Convention adoption record
pursuant to section 552a of title 5, U.S. Code, shall have such right
with respect to identifying information in such record only to the
extent that such right is not restricted by this section.
    b. No Disclosure to Child Under 18. A child who is the subject of a
Convention adoption record shall not be afforded access to identifying
information in such record, and such information shall not be disclosed
to such child, unless the child has reached the age of 18 years.
    c. Freedom of Information Act Exemption. Information contained in
records of the Department of State and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service relating to adoption cases subject to the
Convention shall not be disclosed to any person pursuant to section 552
of title 5, U.S. Code.
    Rather than help implement the Hague Convention, these privacy
provisions, if enacted into law, would actually undermine it; they
would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for many adult
intercountry adoptees to pursue a search for information on the
circumstances of their birth and adoption; and they would virtually
preclude the possibility of a search for birth parents, even under
conditions of mutual consent. Even in situations in which the birth
mother and an adult adoptee are simultaneously searching for the birth
mother--not an uncommon scenario at all--the privacy provisions of S.
682 would erect an impenetrable wall between the adoptee and the birth
parents. Clearly, the creation of such insurmountable obstacles to
search was not the intent of the Hague Convention and it is contrary to
the emerging consensus within the adoption community about the right of
adult adoptees'' access to information about their circumstances of
birth and adoption where such access does not seriously infringe upon
the privacy of the birth parent(s).
    Speaking personally, I have recently decided to pursue a search for
my birth parents, and the lack of records from the period of my birth
and adoption (1960-61) and the time already elapsed since then make the
chances of a successful search already low; the privacy provisions of
S. 682, if enacted, would almost certainly deprive me of any additional
information about the circumstances of my birth and adoption. It is
quite possible that my birth mother may still be alive, and she may
even be searching for me; with both of my adoptive parents now dead,
she would be the only parent remaining to me; S. 682 could well ensure
that we never meet again.
    I urge you, then, to excise the aforementioned privacy provisions
from S. 682, and I submit this letter as testimony to my opposition to
S. 682 as currently drafted.
            Sincerely,
                                Pauline Park, Ph.D.
                               __________
                                        Kimberly A. Turner,
                                            New Brighton, MN 55112.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC 20510.
    Dear Senator, As an adult, International Adoptee, and American
citizen, I want to strongly urge you to reconsider provision S. 682 of
the Intercountry Adoption bill.
    When I took my two daughters (6 & 4) to see Tarzan this summer, I
got a lot more than the usual kids movie I was expecting. Who would've
thought an old story retold (and the accompanying Phil Collins
soundtrack) would become a somewhat cathartic experience for me? What
could I possibly have in common with Tarzan and his family of apes?
    I was born thirty-eight years ago in Korea, adopted at the age of
one, and raised in Iowa. Like Tarzan, those I grew up with were the
only family I knew and loved. I have always considered myself very well
adjusted to life as I knew it--to the point that I felt to give any
thought of where I came from to be fantasy, and I was much too
realistic.
    Though my Mom always encouraged me to know more of my biological
heritage, I wanted nothing to do with it. Just as Tarzan, I wanted to
fit in, to not be considered different. The reflection in the mirror
may have been Asian, but American is all I have ever known.
    It was when I was pregnant with my first daughter that I allowed
myself to consider my own beginnings, and to realize that they were
actually human--I didn't just magically appear. What is the right
balance between adoptive and biological heritage? Especially if there
are two totally different cultures and you really have no connection to
one.
    My first connection came on September 10-12, 1999. I had the
opportunity to attend The Gathering in Washington, DC, a conference
which explored the various aspects and effects of international
adoption on the first generation of Korean Adoptees. Not only are we
the first generation adopted from Korea, but we have paved the way for
international adoption as it has come to be known in the U.S. and
Europe.
    I attended the conference with curiosity and trepidation. The
prospect of being surrounded by Asians was something I was not used to,
nor comfortable with. What I found was my innermost thoughts and
feelings being voiced by strangers who looked like me, without ever
having told them a thing. After three days they knew me in ways those
who have known me a lifetime will never understand.
    This brings me to the Intercountry Adoption Convention
Implementation Act of 1999 which is under your consideration now.
Specifically provision S. 682, sections 401 (b)(1) and 401
(2)(a)(b)(c).
    You cannot begin to comprehend what it is like to have no knowledge
of your background as it relates to international adoptees, unless you
yourself have experienced what we have. It has taken me thirty-seven
years to even acknowledge that being ``well adjusted'' doesn't mean you
have to deny your origination. It will have devastating and long
lasting repercussions to take away adult adoptees rights as it pertains
to the privacy provisions you are now considering.
    For the first time I have given consideration of possibly returning
to the country of my birth. I may find that reality is what I always
thought it to be, that there are no real answers for me, but even then
I can put to rest some of those nagging feelings that are deep within.
Like Tarzan I think I will be grateful to have better understanding of
where I came from and will also realize that my family and home are
where they've been for the last thirty-seven years.
    We can learn the importance of identity and healing knowledge from
this simple children's story, of how Tarzan transformed from the
anguished young boy to a confident man, as he came to find out where he
was from and how he came to be with those who raised him. Disney is
probably grateful to have another profitable venture, but the
connection it can provide to international adoption is amazing.
    Please take the time to listen to the voices of we International
Adoptees and allow us to help you understand the full ramifications of
your vote on this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                Kimberly A. Turner.
                               __________
                                        Anita Walker Field,
                                            Skokie, Illinois 60077.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN. S.682--TESTIMONY

    When the Senate drafts legislation, I believe it is imperative that
our elected representatives listen carefully and thoughtfully to the
people about whom the legislation revolves. In the matter of S. 682, an
adoption bill, the views of adopted citizens must be taken into
account. I am a 62 year old adopted woman who finds it unacceptable
that only representatives from the adoption industry were invited to
give testimony to the Senate on S. 682.
    Did you ever wonder what it is like to be adopted; to live your
life without any knowledge of your biological origins? What do you
think it is like to lose your original parents, your name, your
religion, and your culture with just one stroke of a judge's pen? You
become a new person when you are adopted; a person created not by your
biological parents but by the state. The Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, in a case known as ``In re Female Infant,'' referred to
the adult adoptee's plight as a form of ``genealogical bewilderment.''
And this court was talking about adoptees born in the United States.
    Imagine, if you can, how a child born in another country and into
another culture must feel when he or she is brought to the United
States through the process of adoption. How ``genealogically
bewildered'' must he or she feel? These children have a different
primary language, a different culture, and often, a different face.
Will their heritage be lost to them forever? It most certainly will, if
S. 682 is enacted into law.
    Section 401 of this bill is of particular concern to me. It states
that upon reaching the age of maturity, internationally adopted
children will be forbidden by federal law to ever access information
pertaining to their original identities. Section 401 sanctions the
federal government to permanently seal the birth records of
international adoptees in the United States.
    This provision flies in the face of the current trend of open
records in our country. In 1998, the voters in Oregon overwhelmingly
approved a ballot initiative to unconditionally release original birth
certificates to adult adoptees.
    That same year, The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a 1996 Tennessee adoption records law giving adult adoptees
access to their original birth records. [Roe v Sundquist] In 1997, the
United States Supreme Court declined to review Roe v Sundquist, thus
letting stand the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision that the
federal constitution does not prevent a state from making birth records
available to adults adopted as minors. And just this month, the Supreme
Court of Tennessee upheld this open records legislation.
    To further muddy the waters, Section 401 states that international
adoptees would be exempt from using the Freedom of Information Act to
obtain any information about themselves which is being held by the
federal government. This exemption is normally made only for matters of
national security. This is blatant discrimination against one class of
people whose only ``crime'' was to be born in another country and
adopted by United States citizens.
    The Joint Council on International Children's Services also
expresses serious reservations about S. 682. They write, ``. . . the
Hague Convention in Article 30 specifically mandates that information
on the child, `in particular information containing the identity of his
or her parents,' is preserved and that appropriate access be allowed.''
    It is evident that S. 682 is in conflict with that which it
proposes to implement--The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.
    Adoption is a fluid, lifelong process. That which is in the best
interests of adopted ``children'' is not in the best interests of
adopted adults. Sealing birth records of adopted ``children'' promotes
the adoption process and serves to preserve the adoptive family unit.
But continuing to keep the records sealed after adoptees reach
adulthood is most decidedly not in the adult's best interests! Because
this practice causes us adoptees to be ``genealogically bewildered''
all of our lives.
    I believe it is the civil right of every adult citizen of the
United States, regardless of the circumstances of his or her birth, to
request and receive, unconditionally and without falsification, his or
her original birth certificate.
    Honorable Senators, I urge you all to vote against S. 682 unless
Section 401 is amended to remove the secrecy issues.
        Thank you,
                                Anita Walker Field.
                               __________
                                American Adoption Congress,
                                              New Castle, DE 19720.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC 20510.

RE: S. 682--TESTIMONY.
    Dear Senator Helms: The American Adoption Congress (AAC)
appreciates this opportunity to present its response to the testimony
submitted by adoption organizations and individuals on Tuesday, October
5, 1999, concerning S. 682.
    The AAC, founded in 1978, is a national organization comprised of
individuals, families and adoption professionals committed to adoption
reform. We represent all whose lives are touched by adoption. Through
education and advocacy, we promote honesty, openness and respect for
family connections in public policy.
    AAC supports ratification of the Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoption if and only if implementing legislation establishes adequate
safeguards for children and parents.
    Article 30 of the Convention states that identifying information
and the medical history of the child must be preserved and that the
child or his representative shall have access to such information.
Section 401 of S. 682 deprives adoptees of this access. We urge you to
revise this section so that it conforms to the language in Article 30.
    Our organization strongly supports the requirement in Section
105(a)(3) that the number of disrupted intercountry adoptions be
reported. While we respect the Child Welfare League and the Joint
Council on International Children's Services, we do not agree with
their request that this requirement be deleted. Dr. Ronald Federici and
Barbara Holtan of Tressler Lutheran Services presented testimony on
Tuesday about the rising number of disrupted adoptions in the past few
years. With over 15,000 children immigrating into the United States for
adoption in 1998 alone, it is critical that these disruptions be
tracked, including the country of origin and the responsible agencies
or persons providing adoption services in both countries.
    The requirement that children emigrating from the United States
must be adopted by a married couple should be deleted (Sec.
303(b)(1)(B)). There is no similar requirement for children immigrating
into the United States. The requirement may cause other Convention
countries to retaliate and restrict adoption of their children to
married couples in the U.S.
    We also heard testimony that many agencies and facilitators are not
available to the adoptive parents once the adoption is finalized and
the fees, often exorbitant, collected. AAC recommends that Adoption
Services, as defined in Section 3(3)(F), be revised so that an agency
responsible for arranging an adoption is also required to provide a
full range of post-adoption services, not simply post-placement
monitoring. It could reasonably be expected that the number of
disruptions would decrease as adoptive parents have an opportunity for
counseling and other post-placement services. As Barbara Holtan said so
well, ``Adoption is not an act; it is a process. Far too many adoption
agencies and facilitators see it only as the act of getting the child.
Far more attention must be paid to the long view: the process of
raising that child to adulthood.''
    Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present our position
on this important legislation.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                     Carolyn Hoard,
                                      Legislative Director.
                               __________
                                  Parent Finders of Canada,
                               West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 3J5 Canada.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC 20510.

RE: S. 682--TESTIMONY
    Dear Senator, We are writing to support your efforts to have the
United States ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption and
to strongly oppose any provisions which would officially and
permanently seal the records of international adoptees in the United
States, specifically S. 682, Section 401.
    Parent Finders of Canada was founded 25 years ago in Vancouver to
promote openness and understanding in adoption, to provide a volunteer
service to the adoption community in general, and specifically meet the
needs of adult adoptees and birth relatives, Today we have are over 29
chapters across Canada and 2 chapters in the United States, with a
total of over 56,000 people registered in our Canadian Adoption Reunion
Registry.
    Canada's 1998 International adoption statistics show that the
United States was one of the ten leading countries from which children
were adopted. There are also a significant number of Canadian children
who are adopted by United States citizens each year. The Hague
Convention on Intercountry Adoption seeks to establish minimum
``safeguards to ensure that intercountry adoptions takes place in the
best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental
rights as recognized in international law''. We therefore support your
efforts to ensure that the United States ratifies this treaty.
    However, we strongly oppose S. 682, Section 401, which seeks to
officially and permanently seal the records of international adoptees
in the United States, as Section 401 contravenes international law
including; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child, as well as the spirit and intent of the
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.
    You should be aware that the Tennessee Supreme Court in Doe v.
Sundquist, just last week, recognized an adoptee's right to
retroactively access their personal records (http://
www.tsc.state.tn.us/BARISTA/Tsc/993/Doeopn.htm). In addition, the U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has also upheld an adoptee's right to
access their personal records (http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/feb97/
97a0051p.06.html).
    The United States Senate's proposal to seal international adoptees'
records would therefore thwart the openness and disclosure provisions
of several States and some Provinces. For example, if a child was
adopted from the province of British Columbia, which permits adoptees
to access their records, or the State of Tennessee, which also permits
adoptees to access their records, the Senate's proposed S. 682, Section
401 would negate access to records rights which already exist for these
international adoptees.
    We therefore respectfully call upon the United States Senate to
ratify the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption without any rider
provisions which would seal any records of international adoptees in
the United States.
            Sincerely,
                                       James Kelly,
                                         Legislative Chair,
                                          Parent Finders of Canada.
                               __________
                       Adopted Peoples Association,
                           Irish Adoption Contact Register,
                                               Republic of Ireland.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC 20510.

RE: S. 682--TESTIMONY: U.S. Hague Convention will Permanently Seal
Records of International Adoptees; S. 682, Section 401, which contains
the sealed records and secrecy provisions.
    All at the APA (Adopted Peoples Association (Ireland)) are deeply
saddened at this development in the U.S. Senate. We are genuinely
outraged at this regressive step which is completely out of line with
the international movement of openness in adoption. Would somebody
please inform these Senator's that secrecy in adoption only causes
heartbreak and frustration to all concerned.
    It may be of interest to note that over 2,000 Irish born children
where adopted by U.S. couples in the 50's, 60's & 70's. As adults the
APA has assisted many of these people to successfully reunite with
their natural families. As a result we have acquired a specialised
knowledge of the affects of inter country adoptions.
    Late last year one these reunions was front page news in the
influential Irish Voice newspaper and the story was syndicated around
the U.S.--why? Because it showed the world the raw emotions involved in
adoption search and reunion, i.e., that blood ties can never be broken?
The adopted person in this case searched for over twenty years
travelled over 3,000 miles 3 times, just to find his mother.
    This is not something he wanted to do, this was something he had to
do! His mother was overjoyed. She recalled never seeking
confidentiality, it was imposed by the all knowing authorities. This
imposed confidentiality ensured the loss of over twenty years of a now
flourishing relationship--those years are lost, they can never be given
back.
    Only a very poorly educated person would seek to deny a person a
right to know their very own mother?
    It may also be of interest to note that the Heads of Bill entitled
the Post Adoption & Associated Issues Bill has been under preparation
by the Dept. of Health & Children and will be presented to the Republic
of Ireland's Cabinet (The Government's 15 Ministers) January next for
approval.
    This Bill when enacted will give all adopted people over the age of
18 in the Republic of Ireland the statutory right to obtain their
original birth certificate and surrounding adoption placement
information. The Bill will also provide for the establishment of
statutory search and reunion services to assist adopted people and
natural family members to trace one and other.
    The Government regard this legislation as a top priority. The
relevant Government Minister, Frank Fahey TD stated in speech given in
Dail Eireann (the Irish Parliament) earlier this year that his priority
is to enact legislation that will enable adopted people access their
birth record information which he believes is their birthright.
    The Dept. of Health & Children are also preparing the Head of a
Bill to enable Ireland comply with the terms of the Hague Convention on
the Protection of Children with Respect to Inter Country Adoption which
is due to be presented for Cabinet approval in May/June of next year.
    One of its main provisions will be that the child's natural family
background information must be received by the Irish Central Adoption
Authority before the child will be issued with an entry visa by the
Irish Department of Foreign Affairs (except in clearly defined truly
exceptional circumstances). This background information will be made
available on request to the adopted person at the age of 18.
    Put simply--No background information--No adoption.
    This measure will also work the other way i.e. if an Irish child is
to be adopted in a foreign jurisdiction the child must have the same
rights as a child adopted in Ireland.
    A proposed adoption of an Irish child to a jurisdiction with less
rights than an Irish adopted child will be vetoed.
    Regrettably we will be making representations through all
diplomatic channels available to us concerning this nightmare measure.
    We will start with Sen. Edward Kennedy, the American Ambassador to
Ireland, and the Irish Minister Foreign Affairs, David Andrews TD.
                                      Kevin Cooney,
                            Research & Information Officer,
                             Adopted Peoples Association (Ireland).
                               __________
     Re: S. 682--Intercountry Adoption Convention Implementation Act of
1999, 106th Congress

Mr. Chairman & Committee Members: Thank you for providing us with this
opportunity to express our concerns regarding S. 682--Intercountry
Adoption Convention Implementation Act of 1999 (``S. 682'' or the
``Bill''. Bastard Nation is an incorporated not-for-profit organization
dedicated to preserving and restoring the rights of adoptees.
I. Executive Summary and Recommendation
     We believe that the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the ``Hague
Convention'' should be enabled by the United States in a manner such
that the rights of intercountry adult adoptees to know their identities
will be protected and affirmed.
     We have the following areas of concern:
            (i) Title iv, Section 401 of S. 682.
          We are concerned that S. 682 Section 401 will impose by law a
        form of secrecy on the adoption process which is, by its
        nature, unfair and discriminatory toward Americans adopted from
        foreign countries.
            (ii) The hearing process for S. 682.
          We are concerned that no apparent effort was made to invite
        American citizens personally affected by international
        adoption, including adoptees, adoptive parents and birthparents
        and the voluntary organizations representing them, to submit
        testimony to the Committee regarding S. 682, despite the fact
        that the Bill may have a direct impact upon their lives and the
        lives of all Americans touched by adoption.

     We urge the Committee to amend Section 401 of S. 682 to protect
the right of adult intercountry adoptees to freely access any Hague
Convention-related information held on them by American government
agencies where such access would not explicitly contravene the Hague
Convention. Failing amendment of Section 401, we request the Committee
to reject S. 682 in its entirety. We also request that in the future
the Committee makes appropriate efforts to provide timely notification
of relevant hearings and pending legislation to American citizens
personally concerned with the international adoption process so that
they may participate more meaningfully in the legislative process.
II. Concerns with S. 682 (Title IV, Section 401)
     Adult adoptees everywhere deserve the information held on them by
public agencies and courts concerning their identities, heritage and
development.
     We are concerned that secrecy provisions far more stringent than
those required under Article 30 of the Hague Convention are included in
S. 682. We believe that American intercountry adoptees have an interest
in seeing their access to such information legally preserved instead of
prohibited, and we also believe that this interest takes precedence
over whatever foreign interests S. 682 seeks to protect by prohibiting
such access.
     It is our view that the Federal government should not be
maintaining secret files on American citizens in the absence of a
national interest for doing so, nor should the Federal government
require state and local administrations to do likewise through Federal
legislation. However, Section 401 (b) seems to have the effect of
legally requiring the maintenance of such secret files, and of
permanently preventing adoptees from accessing them.
     Our system of government requires that all citizens deserve be
accorded equal dignity and respect under the law. Specifically
restricting the legal ability of adult intercountry adoptees to access
their personal files and exempting them from the Freedom of Information
Act of 1966, as amended, violates the dignity of such adults, and is
discriminatory. Section 401(c) provides for such an exemption, which we
understand is normally made only where interests of national security
or public safety are involved. There are no interests of national
security or public safety involved in providing non-criminal and non-
suspect American citizens with access to their own records, even where
such records come into the possession of our government from foreign
sources through the Hague Convention adoption process.
     In addition, Section 401 appears to go against the will of the
American people in respect of the treatment of the government-held
records of adoptees. State legislatures have enacted or are considering
the enactment of laws to allow domestically adopted adults access to
certain adoption records. Oregon and Tennessee have recently enacted
legislation permitting access to identifying information. On Friday,
September 27, 1999, the Tennessee State Supreme Court ruled that such
legislation is permitted under their state constitution, dismissing
attempts by plaintiffs to overturn the state law in question (Doe v.
Sundquist). This follows a ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
upholding the same law, as well as by the refusal of the U.S. Supreme
Court to grant cert. to those opposed to the law in their petition to
stop it from going into effect. On July 16, 1999, a lower court in
Oregon issued a similar ruling (Doe v. Kitzhaber) relating to that
state's new law permitting adult adoptees to access their Original
Birth Certificates--a law which was approved by [57%] of Oregon voters
in a state initiative in November, 1998. Furthermore, recent public
opinion surveys conducted by organizations such as CNN have shown that
a vast majority of Americans support the ending of adoption secrecy
laws. S. 682 threatens to make these gains meaningless for intercountry
adoptees. It is unclear why the sponsors of this legislation, Senators
Jesse Helms and Mary Landrieu, appear to be going against the national
trend toward greater openness.
     America's states are not the only governments which give
recognition to the rights denied by S. 682. Many foreign countries also
provide adoptees with access to government-held records, including
countries who regularly allow children to be adopted in the United
States. Yet S. 682 seeks to perpetually seal the records of adoptees
who enter the U.S. from all countries, regardless of the adoption
practices prevalent in those countries--an extreme form of adoption
secrecy which is not required under the Hague Convention or any other
international instrument. If S. 682 is passed as written, adoptees
coming from certain countries would legally lose their right to
information about their identities and heritage only when they become
Americans under the provisions of S. 682. Such secrecy requirements may
also conceivably prevent such adoptees from benefiting under foreign
programs created to assist adoptees once they become adults. Foreign
governments have or are considering measures which would provide
international adoptees with certain benefits. However, the ability of
future generations of intercountry adoptees to take advantage of such
benefits may be put in jeopardy by S. 682's secrecy provisions. A case
in point is the Republic of Korea, which, according to statistics
provided by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service was the
source of 1,829 intercountry adoptees entering the United States in
1998. South Korea provides considerable assistance to adoptees seeking
to obtain information about their identities, as well as programs which
provide tangible economic and social benefits to such adoptees, should
they choose to return to South Korea.
     The right of adoptees to information to their identities and
heritage is widely recognized and mandated in a number of international
instruments. These instruments include the Hague Convention (Article
30), the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 7, 8 and
20 (3)), the U.N. Declaration on Legal and Social Principles Relating
to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to
Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally (Articles
9 and 24) and the widely accepted Uniform Guidelines for Foster Care
and Adoption prepared by the International Council on Social Welfare
(Sections 2.11 and 4.10). Section 401 of S. 682 appears to go against
both the intent and letter of these instruments, including the
instrument it purports to enable.
III. Concerns about the Legislative Process in Respect of S. 682
     We are disappointed that no credible attempt was made to solicit
testimony from individuals and voluntary organizations representing any
of the parties personally involved in the adoption process. We have
heard reports to this effect from voluntary groups representing birth-
parents and adoptive parents who have expressed similar concerns.
Americans who have experienced international adoption first hand as
adoptees, adoptive parents or birthparents are in a position to provide
meaningful and substantive feedback to the Committee. We ask the
Committee to see these people and their organizations as the valuable
resources they are and to solicit testimony from them. We also believe
that the involvement of such people in the legislative process offers a
necessary complement to the views of adoption professionals and others,
including paid lobbyists, involved with the adoption process in
remunerated capacities, who may have certain vested interests with
respect to the outcomes of such process.
IV. Conclusion
     We believe the purposes of the Hague Convention are to mandate
accountability and integrity in the international adoption process, and
to provide minimal standards for protecting the rights of adoptees,
including the right of adoptees to information with respect to their
identities and heritage. S. 682 as drafted appears to contradict these
purposes, and thus requires amendment or rejection by the Committee in
the manner set forth in this testimony.
     We request that the honorable members of the Committee recognize
that international adoption is a lifelong process and not merely about
``moving'' children and babies across international borders. The
American enabling legislation for the Hague Convention needs to reflect
such a lifelong process, as well as to better protect the interests of
those who become American citizens through application of its
provisions. The best means to achieve these ends are to ensure that the
legislation in question is consistent with the desires of the American
people, and, in particular, those voters who are personally concerned
with the adoption process. We stand prepared to assist you in this
process.
            Yours sincerely,
                                        Ron Morgan,
                                       Executive Committee,
                                                    Bastard Nation.

                                      Julie Dennis,
                                     Legislative Committee,
                                                    Bastard Nation.

                                     Albert S. Wei,
                         Educational Development Committee,
                                                    Bastard Nation.
                               __________
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC 20510.

ATTN: S. 682--TESTIMONY
    Dear Senator Helms: I previously sent correspondence by fax to both
you and the Honorable Mary Landrieu regarding the above captioned
legislation. To date, I've heard no response and want to take this
opportunity to submit formal testimony to the Committee reviewing S.
682 in an amicus capacity.
    I am a 39-year old adoptee, born in Ireland, adopted and raised in
the United States. Moreover, I am also birth mother to an adult
daughter born and adopted in the US. We were happily reunited in 1997
and now enjoy a close, loving relationship that extends to her adoptive
parents, my own family, and that of her birth father.
    Having reviewed the text of S. 682, I am gravely concerned that
this legislation serves to violate many terms of the Hague Convention
on Intercountry Adoption, rather than to support or implement its
articles. The Hague is quite clear in its intent to provide all
children adopted across national lines with the records of their birth,
including the original birth certificate. S. 682 actually seeks to seal
these records and exclude them from the FOIA information most
naturalised US citizens would be able to request and receive.
    I was able to obtain my original Irish birth certificate using the
FOIA, along with other important documents, and am grateful that this
avenue was open to me as a US citizen. Unfortunately, this information
would have been sealed from me under a 1984 law passed by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where my adoption was finalised. It is a
sad fact that most US adult adoptees do not enjoy the same rights as
their non-adopted counterparts--that is, access to their original birth
certificate (OBC). Only Kansas and Alaska have always had open records,
and now Tennessee (under a very recent Tennessee Supreme Court ruling)
will reopen theirs. Additionally, Oregon passed Measure 58 this past
November to reopen access to the OBC, but it is currently under an
injunction until a legal decision is reached.
    Senator, this very simple piece of documentation is the birthright
of every other American. Why should any adult be denied this right
simply because of the status of their birth? In the case of
international adoption, this document and other information, such as
medical history, are vital to the transition of children (who will,
incidentally, one day be voting adults) in our culture. Adoption is not
a one-time, one-step process. It isa lifetime, full-circle event that
involves the cooperation and full disclosure of all parties
involved*the birthparents (inasmuch as possible), the adoptive parents,
and of course, the child.
    I urge you and the Committee to reconsider the proposed legislative
context of S. 682 and move instead toward ratifying and implementing
the full Hague Convention as written. Ireland is currently assessing
ratification and I am working diligently with government and peer
groups in that country to encourage that process. I have been active
here in the US as well for many years in adoption issues, particularly
relative to open records.
    I would be most happy to provide the Committee any expertise I can
offer, background materials, or general assistance and testimony. This
issue is very important to me and one with which I closely identify.
    Please reconsider the wording of this legislation and most
importantly--consider the voices of those whom it most affects. To
date, the Committee is represented largely by adoption industry
members, with little to no representation from individuals affected
most by the process: adoptees who will become, or are now, adults.
            Thank you for your time and consideration,
                                     Mari T. Steed,
               Pennsylvania State Director, Bastard Nation.
                               __________
                     Joint Council on International
                                       Children's Services.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Sen. Helms: The Joint Council on International Children's
Services thanks you for your leadership on the U.S. ratification and
implementation of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
    Joint Council, as the largest and oldest affiliation of licensed,
non-profit international adoption agencies in the world, has been
closely involved with the treaty since its historic inception in 1993.
Susan Freivalds, Joint Council's Hague Convention Policy Coordinator,
was a delegate to the Hague Conference. Susan Cox, then president of
the Board of Directors of Joint Council, was also a delegate in 1993.
    Since then, Joint Council has been promoting the Hague Convention
as an important means of protecting children, and of safeguarding the
rights and responsibilities of all those involved in adoption, We are
disappointed that we have not been invited to testify about S. 682 on
behalf of our 130+ member licensed, non-profit international adoption
agencies. In the more than 20 years of Joint Council's existence, our
member agencies have developed an impressive amount of professional
experience, knowledge, humanitarian aid programs, and commitment to
children and families.
    We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on
S. 682, and will do so.
    We are aware that speculation has been raised about Joint Council's
commitment to accountability by agencies. Sen. Helms, in the interest
of fairness and accuracy, we want to be sure you receive correct
information.
    For example, Joint Council has taken a leadership role in promoting
standards of excellence and accountability for adoption professionals.
We take the accreditation process for agencies very seriously, not
simply because we recognize it as a vital part of the Hague Convention
process, but also because it provides rigorous and appropriate
opportunities for professional accountability.
    In fact, as a result of thoughtful deliberation, in dialogue with
other adoption-related agencies and federal entities, Joint Council led
the development and promotion of Proposed Accreditation Standards for
adoption agencies. (A copy, as published in our February 1997 Bulletin,
is attached.)
    These proposed standards. developed with the Hague Alliance, were
sent to the State Department nearly 3 years ago, as a measure of our
commitment to accountability and service. The Council on Accreditation
used these proposed standards in the development of their accreditation
process for intercountry adoption providers. Many of our 130+ Joint
Council agencies are currently going through the rigorous accreditation
process with COA, and we expect many more will do so.
    Sen. Helms, we raise this with you as but one example of Joint
Council's commitment to professionalism and service--well before the
implementing legislation was introduced. Additionally, you may not be
aware that our Education Committee has produced two extremely important
and widely disseminated documents related to preparation and post-
placement services.
    Joint Council believes that preparation is a critical component for
the success of any adoption. The Adoptive Parent Preparation System,
published by our Education Committee in 1998, has been widely
distributed as a minimum standard for preparation in the homestudy
process. It includes thoughtful readings and an impressive resource
guide, encouraging both parents and agencies to look at the preparation
process thoroughly and thoughtfully.
    This year, the Committee produced ``Post-Placement Guidelines and
Tools for Adoption Professionals,'' as an educational tool signifying
the importance we place on quality post-placement services.
    Competence, financial soundness, and ethical behavior should be
considered basic standards for the accreditation process. In other
words, we are deeply committed to measures of excellence for
professionals providing adoption services.
    That is, of course, one part of our motivation in promoting the
Hague Convention. We also hope, as the United States moves toward the
historic ratification of the treaty, that the adoption process becomes
more streamlined and effective. Ensuring that children in desperate
need can join loving U.S. families in an ethical, legal, and efficient
manner is crucial, and we appreciate your leadership in achieving this
goal.
    Sen. Helms, thank you for introducing S. 682, and for calling for
hearings on the Hague Convention. It is our hope that the needs of the
children will come first in these discussions, and that extraneous
matters, anecdotal conjecture, or personal agendas will not impede the
legislation's progress. We recognize your long-standing commitment to
states' rights issues, and suggest that deference to state law, except
insofar as it is necessary to implement the Convention, will be
important.
    We very much appreciate your powerful recognition of the need for
this treaty, to ensure that adoption is in the best interests of the
child, and to establish a system of cooperation among counties to
eliminate the abduction, sale, and trafficking of children. We look
forward to the United States taking a leadership role In achieving
these objectives, and thank you for your bard work on behalf of
children.
            Sincerely,
                                     Maureen Evans,
                                        Executive Director.

                                   Susan Freivalds,
                       Hague Convention Policy Coordinator.

                                 ______

                    proposed accreditation standards
    The Hague Alliance's proposed standards for recognition as an
agency qualified to provide intercountry adoption services and
accredited under the terms of the Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoption
A.  Organization Legal Sanction, and Regulatory Compliance
    A.1  The agency is authorized by statute or sanctioned by the state
authorities through licensure as an adoption agency to deliver adoption
and/or Intercountry adoption service.
    A.2  For adoptive placements not finalized in the child's country
of origin, the agency that arranged the placements will accept legal
custody of the child, up to the finalization of the adoption, as
allowed by state law.
    A.3  The agency is a non-profit corporation, complying with section
501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
B.  Governance
    B.1  The agency has a governing body responsible for establishing
its policies, determining its programs, guiding its development, and
providing leadership.
    B.2  The governing body is organized so that it can provide
governance and oversight and assure that the agency is funded, housed,
staffed and equipped in the manner required to carry out its program.
    B.3  The governing body delegates responsibility for the
administration and management of the agency to a chief executive
officer or executive director whom it holds account able for the
agency's performance through a formal evaluation process which occurs
no less frequently than every two years.
    B.4  Permanent records are kept of the deliberations of the
governing body.
    B.5  The governing body approves agency policy and assures that the
agency is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations
governing its program of services.
    B.6  The governing body members receive no honoraria or other
compensation for carrying out their duties, other than reasonable
reimbursement for expenses associated with service to the agency.
    B.7  The governing body assures that neither the board, volunteers,
personnel or consultants are favored in applying for or receiving
adoption services or other services of the agency.
    B.8  Written agency policy prohibits actual or promised payment or
other consideration to any party directly or indirectly involved in the
administration of an intercountry adoption service, whether acting as
an employee or independent contractor, except for the performance of
routine professional duties necessary to successfully complete the
adoption process.
    B.9  No payment or other consideration is provided, promised, or
accepted for referral of applicants to or from the agency.
    B.10  There are no improper financial interests in the assets,
leases, professional services or business transactions of the agency on
the part of directors, employees, volunteers, contractors, or
consultants.
    B.11  Agency salaries and benefits are established in consideration
of national surveys and those of similar agencies and organizations in
its area and in the field of adoption, including intercountry practice,
so as not to unreasonably exceed those norms.
C.  Finances and Fees
    C.1  The agency obtains sufficient financial resources to operate
its programs at an adequate and continuing level consistent with the
expectations contained in the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption
and applicable state laws or regulations regarding intercountry
adoption.
    C.2  The agency complies with all applicable laws or regulations
governing fee-setting.
    C.3  The agency establishes a written schedule of fees and
estimated or actual expenses and informs applicants at the point
service is initiated of the conditions under which fees are charged,
changed, refunded, waived, or reduced and the manner and timing of
payment.
    C.4  At the time of or prior to service delivery, clients are
informed in writing of what they will be charged for services and of
anticipated fees and costs in the child's country of origin.
    C.5  The agency has a policy that it neither solicits nor accepts
contributions from adoptive applicants or from persons acting on the
applicant's behalf during the period of application or before an
adoption has been finalized, unless such contributions are associated
with requests made to offer past and present clients by the agency and
to the public, provided that donation history and placement decisions
are kept separate, insofar as possible.
    C.6  An annual budget, based upon a realistic appraisal of funding
anticipated and the costs of operation, is approved by the governing
body as the financial plan for allocating and managing the agency's
receipts and disbursements during the program year.
    C.7  The agency follows generally accepted principles of sound
financial management, has a bookkeeping and accounting system (cash or
accrual method) that tracks all movements of its funds, demonstrates
its fiscal accountability through an independent annual audit as well
as regular reporting of its finances to the governing body, and meets
the financial reporting requirements of state regulations.
    C.8  The agency can demonstrate compliance with the fund raising
requirements of the states in which it solicits donations.
D.  Administration and Management
    D.1  The executive director is qualified by education and/or
adoption services experience and the management skills sufficient to
assure effective use of the agency resources, delivery of agency
services, and coordination of the agency's services with those of other
agencies in the community.
    D.2  The executive director:
          <bullet> delegates responsibilities only to personnel who are
        qualified by professional education arid/or experience to
        assume them;
          <bullet> has a written plan for delegation of authority in
        his or her absence.
    D.3  The agency has a board.approved manual of policies and
procedures and a manual of personnel policies which serve as guides to
the governing body, personnel and others, as appropriate.
    D.4  There is a written job description for each agency position,
including that of executive director, and persons retained are
qualified in accord with the job descriptions.
    D.5  The agency's policies specify clearly the conditions under
which personnel are employed and protections against favoritism or
undue influence in employment practices.
    D.6  The agency actively recruits, employs, and promotes qualified
personnel broadly representative of the community it serves, and
administers its personnel practices without discrimination.
    D.7  The agency maintains a secure and confidential system of
personnel records which include all necessary documentation of the
hiring, evaluation, and other employment-related processes at the
agency.
E.  Qualifications and Training of Supervisory and Service Personnel
    E.1  The agency retains social service supervisory personnel with
prior professional experience in providing family and children's
services and who have:
          <bullet> a master's degree from an accredited program of
        social work education; or
          <bullet> a master's degree from an accredited program in
        another human service field; or
          <bullet> a state social work license at the master's degree
        level.
    E.2  Direct social service personnel have at least a bachelor's
degree from an accredited program of social work education or in
another human service field and prior experience in family and
children's services.
    E.3  Supervisory and direct social service personnel possess
knowledge of intercountry adoption service, including knowledge of
issues of:
          <bullet> separation and loss from family of origin;
          <bullet> bonding to an adoptive family;
          <bullet> development and life cycle phases;
          <bullet> post-traumatic stress disorder;
          <bullet> identity formation;
          <bullet> cultural diversity and cross-cultural issues;
          <bullet> INS rules and regulations.
    E.4  Professional personnel providing intercountry adoption service
hold the license appropriate in their state to their professional
discipline, if applicable, and subscribe to the code of ethics of the
professional organization for their discipline.
    E.5  All new personnel providing intercountry adoption service are
provided with orientation and in-service training in inter-country
adoption service, which include:
          <bullet> the agency's goals, services, policies and
        procedures;
          <bullet> a the cultural diversity of the service population;
          <bullet> respect for client confidentiality;
          <bullet> the lines of accountability and authority within the
        agency; and
          <bullet> the agency's ethical and professional expectations.
    E.6  Direct social service personnel receive at least 10 hours of
training relevant to the field annually.
    E.7  Either the executive director, supervisor, or the direct
social service provider has direct experience in the professional
delivery of adoption services.
F.  Quality of Services
    F.1  The agency engages in systematic planning and evaluation of
its services and holds itself accountable for the quality of the
services it provides.
    F.2  The agency plans for manages, maintains necessary information
about, and evaluates its programs effectively.
    F.3  The agency provides to its applicants and clients the
opportunity and means to lodge complaints or appeals when decisions
concerning them or services provided them are considered
unsatisfactory.
G.  Generic Service Delivery Standards
    G.1  The agency maintains intake procedures which assure that
appropriate and timely attention is paid to those requesting service.
    G.2  The agency informs applicants for service about its
eligibility criteria, the services which are available, and the mutual
rights and responsibilities of both clients and agency.
    G.3  The agency has written procedures for accepting clients for
initial screening and for placement on a waiting list.
    G.4  The agency has the capacity to provide, either directly or in
coordination with other providers acting on behalf of or under the
responsibility of the agency:
          <bullet> intake screening;
          <bullet> comprehensive assessment;
          <bullet> development of a service plan;
          <bullet> implementation of the service plan;
          <bullet> coordination of services with other necessary
        providers; and development of a plan for ongoing services as
        needed.
    G.5 Client records:
          <bullet> are maintained in a confidential and secure manner;
          <bullet> contain the essential information deemed necessary
        to provide the service; and
          <bullet> comply with legal regulations, including regulations
        with regard to record retention.
    G.6  The agency has procedures addressing:
          <bullet> protection of the privacy of current and former
        clients;
          <bullet> legitimate future requests by former clients for
        information, particularly for that which may not be available
        elsewhere; and
          <bullet> disposition and future preservation of client
        records in the event of dissolution of the agency.
H.  Adoption Service Standards
    H.1  The agency identifies the child as the primary client of the
service and seeks to provide mutually beneficial relationships in an
adoptive family to children whose birth parents are unwilling or unable
to provide care for them and who are legally free for adoption.
    H.2  Services for adoptive applicants are provided either directly
or in coordination with other providers acting under the responsibility
of the agency or in coordination with other accredited bodies and
include:
          <bullet> orientation to intercountry adoption, its meaning,
        the adoption process, agency procedures, and the
        characteristics of children needing adoption;
          <bullet> disclosure of the general criteria by which the
        agency determines eligibility for adoptive parenthood;
          <bullet> determination of the ability of the adoptive
        applicants to meet the needs of an internationally adopted
        child and preparation of a home study report;
          <bullet> preparation for parenting and placement of an
        internationally adopted child;
          <bullet> obtaining assurances that at placement the child is
        legally free for international adoption;
          <bullet> following standard procedures to obtain assurance
        that the child is or will be authorized to enter and reside
        permanently in the United States;
          <bullet> full disclosure of all information available to the
        agency regarding the child's medical and social history as part
        of the referral information; and assurance that the adoption of
        the child is finalized.
    H.3  The agency collects and exchanges information about the
situation of the child and the prospective adoptive parents, so far as
is necessary to complete the adoption, and ensures that information
held by the agency concerning the child's origin, in particular the
identity of his or her birth parents, as well as the medical history is
preserved.
    H.4  The agency provides prospective parents appropriate time and
support to consider a child's referral.
    H.5  The agency provides counseling to prospective adoptive parents
that includes assistance in understanding the child's cultural, ethnic,
or linguistic background and the impact of leaving familiarities and
surroundings, as appropriate to the age of the child.
    H.6  Post-placement services include:
          <bullet> providing post-placement reports on the progress of
        a child, when requested by the country of origin and when not
        in conflict with the law or public policy of the United States
        or of the state of official residence of the adoptive parents
        or parent;
          <bullet> counseling or referral to counseling for adoptive
        parents and the adoptee, when an adoptive placement is in
        crisis;
          <bullet> re-placement of the child in the event of disruption
        of the adoptive placement before finalization of the adoption;
        and
          <bullet> assurance that the child or his or her
        representative has access, under appropriate guidance, to
        information regarding the child's origins that is held by the
        agency, insofar as permitted by laws governing the agency's
        operations, the laws of the child's country of origin, and the
        agency's own policy in this regard.
    H.7  Post-adoption services are available, as appropriate under the
laws of the child's country of origin and the United States, upon
request by members of the adoption triad, and include:
          <bullet> delivery of services by persons with prior
        experience in post-adoption service and who are knowledgeable
        about the legal, social, cultural, an, emotional issues
        pertinent to adoption;
          <bullet> provision of information sought by adoptees about
        their origins, as permitted by the laws of the child's country
        of origin, the laws governing the agency's operations, and the
        agency's own policy in this regard;
          <bullet> post-adoption reports on the progress of the child
        when requested by the child's country of origin and when not in
        conflict with law or public policy of the United States or of
        the state of official residence of the adoptive parents or
        parent; and
          <bullet> post-adoption counseling on family adjustment and
        adoption issues or referral when requested by the family.
I.  Other Service Standards
    I.1  The agency cooperates with the central authority in all
matters related to compliance with the terms of the Hague convention on
intercountry adoption.
    I.2  The agency provides service to applicants seeking to adopt a
child from another country on the same basis and with no greater delay
than to those applicants seeking to complete a domestic adoption, if
the agency places children both domestically and internationally.
    I.3  Adoption studies done by or under the supervision of the
agency meet agency requirements and applicable state standards and
comply with the minimum standards established for international
adoption studies by the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
    I.4  The agency informs families about how to obtain citizenship
for their adopted child.
    I.5  The agency does not allow preferential placement decisions
regarding children the agency might refer for adoption to agency
directors, employees, contractors, or consultants who are adoptive
applicants.
                               __________
To: Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

RE: S. 682

    We hired Kirk Rector an American Attorney living in Moscow, Russia.
He was employed by Global Adoption in Global Adoption Agency out of
Sheridan, WY. They are still in business after taking money from very
many families. Our story is below.

          1. Originally signed up with Kirk Rector who basically
        couldn't tell the truth! His stories changed daily about our
        children and he didn't check things out regarding databank,
        relinquishment etc. He wasted 6 months of our time and came up
        with nothing but 4 failed referrals!
          2. Two days before we went to Russia, Ivan Volsky wrote
        demanding more money and changing his fee due to the fact that
        he had not been paid the agency fee by another couple who had
        adopted from Barnual (who had been totally disgusted with
        Global's performance.)
          3. Got to Moscow * * * no-one to meet us. Ivan Volsky came
        late.
          4. As soon as he met us, he asked for more money than had
        been quoted in the contract. From here on in, the ``money
        talk'' started!
          5. Nick Volsky (Ivan's brother and helper) argued with us
        that we had only requested one child! From August 96, we
        requested two children under 4, twins or siblings.
          6. Quoted $125 per day for expenses. When we got there they
        tried to hit us for $250 as Ivan said, ``this money which had
        been quoted was totally insufficient''. Nice of him to tell us
        AFTER we arrived!
          7. We were told (at the last minute) to give $1,000 donation
        to the orphanage. We offered the money, but were TOLD to buy a
        computer!
          8. We bought a computer ($1,000), gave $600 of new and used
        clothing to the children (after we'd checked with Ivan that
        used clothing was acceptable), toys and numerous other gifts.
        We were told the day AFTER the court hearing when the Judge,
        the Head of Adoptions and the Orphanage Director had said YES
        to the adoption that this was insufficient and we'd have to pay
        another $1,000 or else ``Global wouldn't be offered any other
        children for the parents who were waiting and we do still have
        to get your papers translated and your passports ready!'' We
        objected to this blackmail! We were told that the orphanage
        director had been insulted that we had given her 2nd hand
        clothing and that ``ALL the staff (all 120 of them) in the
        orphanage, were insulted and furious with us! We had called
        Russia several times to check things before we took our gifts
        over. We specifically asked if nearly new clothing was
        acceptable and we were told yes. The used clothing we gave, by
        the way, was in excellent condition! We refused to pay the
        $1,000 as by this time, we didn't trust either Ivan or Nick
        Volsky and we ended up only paying $250. We don't believe that
        it went to the Orphanage Director! Ivan then changed his story
        to say that we should be paying $2,000 per child. Again, none
        of this was even mentioned before we left for Russia.
          9. When we arrived at the host family's home at 7 a.m. one
        morning, they never knew we were coming! When we arrived at
        their home one evening at 9:30 p.m. with two three year olds,
        they never knew that either. When we paid extra for the
        children's food (another $20 per day) they didn't know what to
        give them or when to give it! We relied on Nick to translate to
        them as they spoke no English and our Russian was limited to
        Teddy Bears and Dolls talk! Some mornings we waited two hours
        for the kid's breakfast and when it was ready, it wasn't what
        we had asked for. We only asked for the same as in the
        orphanage, porridge and bread. Eggs, cabbage, potatoes, carrot
        coleslaw and curds came! Oh I forgot the pure cow's milk which
        gave the kids terrific diarreha. There was constant arguing in
        the Host family's house due to the confusion and due to the
        fact that the woman was so old and kept trying to give us other
        things to eat which the kids hated, and really she shouldn't
        have been undertaking such work.
          10. Every day between 15 and 20 times, we'd hear about the
        subject of money from Nick and Ivan. How little they had, how
        Joyce Volsky never gave them enough, how they couldn't possibly
        do the adoption for us on this pittance of money unless we gave
        them more etc. etc. etc. We got so sick of it that on the day
        they blackmailed us into giving them more for the orphanage, we
        told them to shut up about money! EVERY DAY IT WAS THE SAME
        STORY!! It really wasn't what we needed and we knew it wasn't
        true!
          11. Ivan and Nick argued constantly and we mean constantly!
        Mostly about money. Surprise, surprise and how they should ask
        us for more! When we handed over the daily expenses, Nick would
        turn on Ivan and give out yet another lecture in Russian. When
        we asked Ivan what it was about, he told us that again, Nick
        bad asked him to get more money from us and tell us that what
        we were paying was not enough! EVERY DAY WAS THE SAME STORY!
        Could you have put up with this?? Going to Vyksa by car, they
        argued most of the way too! It was a great trip!!!! I don't
        think!
          12. Paid for translator, Driver and mid day meal every day
        and some days we were left without them as Nick or Ivan had
        other things to do, like going back to the orphanage to pick up
        papers they forgot to get after the court hearing. So sometimes
        we had no driver, translator or lunch! Good job we took cuppa
        soups with us! Of course, no refund was offered here!

    There were many problems with Global and I think now they are too
many to mention. All we can say is that we would NOT recommend them to
anyone. CERTAINLY NOT! They are unprofessional and certainly do not
have their act together. The constant harassment over money issues and
stress brought on by it was just too much. I couldn't bear to talk to
Nick Volsky for two days due to how angry I was after we were hit for
another $1,000! It was a very difficult situation as we relied heavily
on them due to our situation in Russia not knowing how to speak proper
Russian or being able to get around. (This, by the way, is the first
country we've been in where we've found ourselves in this situation and
we've traveled a great deal!)
    We do not have a problem with the Russian system or the people or
the ``bribery/gifts'' that we had to take. What we do have a problem
with is when the people we reply so heavily on in a strange country try
to sting us for every penny they can and they know we are at their
mercy!
    It has left us with a bad impression of Ivan and Nick Volsky. What
a shame our adoption was messed up firstly by Kirk Rector and then by
these cowboys!
    We are happy though that we brought Artiom and Yelena home,
although we are so sure that the process would have been much smoother
with another agency.
    The silly thing is that there is a saying ``you only get what you
pay for''. Under the contract we signed with Kirk Rector, we only paid
$12,000 for the two unrelated children. We should really relate the
services rendered to the money paid!
    The only advice we have to people whom is considering using Global
Adoption Services is DON'T! Unless you want your entire trip to be
blackmail and talk of hardship and moaning from the coordinators and
you want to empty the entire contents of your bank account into their
pockets. . . . please re-think! We only stayed with them as Kirk Rector
had wasted so much of our time that our seals expired within the month
and we had already chosen a boy from the video another client had. It
was just pure luck that a girl came along too.
    What a saga, Fm sure as the happy times start with the children,
the bad memories of Global will fade!
    Here's hoping!
             Nigel, Joyce, Yelena and Artiom Ryder,
                          The Ryder Family on 7th May 1997.
                               __________
                               Randie Ostroff Sass,
                                                 Akron, OH.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
    Dear Chairman Jesse Helms, I understand that the senate committee
on foreign relations will be meeting next to discuss S. 682.
    Please let me add my voice to be heard. We started our ``journey''
in January 1996. We had not chosen an agency to work with, but I knew
that the first step would be our home study. Our social worker tried to
help us find agencies that dealt with overseas adoption. We did check
into those, but it was at a meeting that I was given the email address
for a list of people in various stages of Russian adoption. It was
through this wonderful group of people that we learned more than anyone
had ever told us. One of the parents maintains a list of agencies and
people willing to talk about them. We originally were going to go with
an Ohio agency, but later changed because of cost and they were not
giving us the guidance they claimed they would. Through the list we
went with Global Adoption Agency out of Sheridan, WY. They were working
with an American lawyer in Russia, and if you were doing all your own
paperwork and were ready, they would save you money, etc. That was
January 1997. We followed their procedures and were told that when
Joyce Sterkel-Volsky (owner of Global Adoption) went to Russian in
February, she would bring back our referral. I went out and bought
$300.00 of new clothing as our gift to the orphanage in my excitement.
February and March came and went. We were told that Joyce was delayed
coming home. Then we received a letter stating that Global had severed
their relationship with this American Lawyer. We were welcome to stay
with Global. Believing that we were OK, we chose to remain. When Joyce
went back in April, she brought nothing. She went again in May and we
were assured that she would return in 2 weeks and we would have our
referral. Joyce stayed until June and returned something like 2 days
before our homestudy was to expire. There was no referral and we had to
scramble to keep our paperwork current. Then we received a letter
stating we had not paid that part of our fees to receive a referral [we
hadn't] and would not get a referral until paid. I changed agencies one
week later. Traveled one month later to Russia and brought our Ben
home. We did write to the WY government and never heard from them. Even
checking out references, etc., we still lost money. Plus each agency
had different state requirements that set us back each switch [more
costs, more paperwork]. Your help would be appreciated in developing
consumer protection for adoption.
            Sincerely,
                               Randie Ostroff Sass.
                               __________
Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Chairman: Jesse Helms.

RE: International Adoption and Agencies

    We support S. 682 and would like to submit a brief account of our
experience for your consideration. My husband and I adopted our son
from San Luis, Mexico through the agency Christian World Adoption. We
entered the country on November 8, 1998 and I arrived home with our son
on January 20, 1999. Repeatedly during our stay in Mexico, our agency's
business professionalism and coordination disappointed us. As this was
our first adoption, we had no idea what to expect and had to rely
entirely on CWA to communicate and facilitate the process. Upon
returning home we experienced only further frustration when there was
no recourse for the failings of the agency. We submitted numerous
letters attempting to meet and discuss our experiences with the
director of the agency, Tommy Lee Harding, only to receive no answer.
We have attached a copy of one our letters detailing some of the
problems we encountered. We also contacted Virginia Rabenel about the
agencies accreditation, and spoke with countless others only to learn
that there is no system in place to address the concerns of adoptive
parents with any efficiency or expediency. It is imperative that those
involved with adoption be accountable. We are only one family, one
adoption case among thousands, but many have had experiences as bad or
worse than ours. With S. 682 you can make a difference and improve the
system for those that follow.
            Sincerely,
                       Kathleen and Roger Anderson.
                                 ______

      letter sent to robert harding by kathleen and roger anderson
    Robert Harding
    Wando, South Carolina 29492
          Dear Robert Harding, I am writing regarding the adoption
        process of our son Jacob. As discussed m my phone conversation
        with Bob in early March, I will attempt to explain and document
        the problems we experienced while suggesting possible
        alternatives or solutions. To date an opportunity to share our
        experiences has not been available; this may contribute to some
        confusion about what transpired. I anticipate that we will need
        to have further dialogue to assure fill comprehension of our
        experience.
          We contacted our travel agent, Tuesday November 2nd, after we
        received the phone call from Jo-Ann with our travel date of
        Sunday November 8th. We made arrangements for our itinerary to
        be faxed for approval. Prior to confirming these arrangements
        Jo-Ann and I discussed flying into Mexico City vs. Monterrey on
        our way to San Luis. She said she would check with Maria Hanley
        but believed either entry point was fine. We never heard
        otherwise. Later, approximately 5 days after our arrival, we
        found out we should have entered via Mexico City and filed the
        petition to adopt before coming to San Luis and taking physical
        custody of Jacob. Six weeks into our stay in San Luis we
        learned we must fly to Monterrey before Ciudad Juarez to apply
        for our visa.
          The confusion about the steps in the process and where these
        steps needed to be completed were very unsettling for a couple
        who wre experiencing adoption for the first time. As adoptive
        parents you put your trust in the agence to guide you safely
        and efficiently through the complicated maze. Mistakes like
        those mentioned above are very damaging to that trust and
        expensive, as additional costs are incurred for flights and
        itinerary changes.
          The problems that occurred with our itinerary are easily
        preventable. Every case should have a proposed chain of events
        including the steps involved, tentative dates for completion,
        and the cities in which each of these will be accomplished.
        These steps should be verified by phone with both Mexican and
        American officials to assure that the most up to date and
        accurate information is being given to adoptive parents. That
        would help assure that no adoptive parent is paying for
        assumptions, but rather for experienced individuals with a high
        level of experience, knowledge, and professionalism.
          Another problem that occurred repeatedly was with
        communication. Even the most basic courtesy of returning a
        telephone call, or calling back as promised did not happen. On
        many occasions we were told we should wait for a call that
        never came or comes hours or even days later. This did not only
        occur with the affiliates in Mexico but also those that worked
        out of the South Carolina office. Again this was another aspect
        the continued to deteriorate the trust we had in Christian
        World Adoption and the agency's ability to successfully
        navigate us through this complex process. There is no way to
        assure ourselves that the employees of the agency are courteous
        and respectful however it is obvious that training is needed in
        this area from an outside source. There are many wonderful
        workshops, inservices, and continuing education courses
        available to assist the employees in extending their knowledge
        of customer service. Our experiences not only recommend this
        but also necessitate this training immediately.
          Throughout our stay in Mexico we were continually told things
        were moving and we would be leaving shortly. Now, having
        experienced the entire process it is clear that many of the
        steps took several days to execute. However we were told to
        reserve seats almost daily. Flight reservations were changed
        twenty two times from early December until our departure on
        January 19th. The emotional cost of believing, anticipating,
        and preparing to travel for both my Mother, Roger and I is
        inconceivable for anyone not experiencing it first hand. As a
        new family being separated for such a long time is by itself
        difficult but always a possibility when completing a foreign
        adoption. However, the extensive miscommunication concerning
        the progress and the adoption process exacted an unnecessary
        emotional cost.
          It is our families' belief that throughout the process
        situations arose that for varied reasons were very unfamiliar
        to CWA's personnel. We feel it would have been beneficial to
        all involved if that had been admitted rather than to
        communicate assumptions. Deadlines should not be given or dates
        set when it is impossible to ascertain any certainty. Most of
        all it should be ok to say we don't know anything and we are
        still waiting. Frustration occurs when something is promised
        and then repeatedly taken away.
          Daily communication is not always a possibility. We feel that
        it is essential for the affiliates in Mexico and the employees
        in South Carolina to communicate efficiently and daily.
        Whenever possible the adoptive parents should be involved in
        this communication and be receiving updates. Our hotels all had
        fax machines and it would have been both efficient and
        economical to utilize these to communicate the process. I am
        aware that emails and phone calls happened daily between Mexico
        and South Carolina but days would pass without knowing what if
        anything had transpired. Faxing would give everyone a hard copy
        to read from and keep everyone on the same page.
          The misrepresentation to the judge on our behalf must be
        mentioned. After successfully completing all of the adoption
        requirements in the homestudy and feeling confident of our
        ability to provide a loving and secure home for a child we were
        denied the opportunity to share ourselves with the Judge. A
        preposterous story was told that was blatantly unsubstantiated
        by our dossier. We were completely unprepared for this and
        nowhere was this mentioned in the adoption planner. When we
        questioned the ethics with CWA we were told two different
        stories. Maria Hanley claimed no knowledge of the fabrications
        that had transpired while Mr. Harding assured us that this
        happens all the time. Again as adoptive parents living in a
        foreign country whom do you believe?
          Finally as Jacob's adoption continued to spiral out of
        control and became more confusing, extended, and expensive we
        received less contact and support from CWA. Repeatedly attempts
        to pacify us were made utilizing Jacob as the source for
        pacification. Apologies were not given and responsibility was
        not taken for the extensive miscalculations, miscommunication,
        and maltreatment.
          We feel that our experience necessitates a sincere apology as
        an acknowledgement of the failure to provide the quality of
        service promised. Also we would like to see steps taken to
        improve the Mexican program so that this does not happen to
        other adoptive parents. Finally we are requesting a financial
        reimbursement for the extensive additional costs incurred. We
        are looking forward to dialoguing about our experience and hope
        this brief summary helps you to better understand some of what
        transpired.
                Regards,
                       Kathleen and Roger Anderson.
                               __________
                                       Steven F. Whiteside,
                                      Chesterfield, Virginia 23838.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

RE: International Adoption Agencies

    Our daughter and her husband, Kathleen and Roger Anderson, have
submitted a detailed summary of their multiple and continuous problems
with Christian World Adoption from the time they arrived on-site in
Mexico until arriving home some two and a half months later.
    Meantime, back in Virginia and Maryland, though not enduring the
daily emotional strain, I also had first hand experience with Christian
World Adoption and would like to recount one episode that exemplifies
their professional ineptness.
    It was Wednesday, November 25, 1998, the day before Thanksgiving.
There was an urgent need to contact Christian World Adoption because
due to their lack of communication with our daughter and her husband,
it was unclear whether the adoptive father needed to stay in Mexico for
a procedural question, or return home to Maryland and to work. By that
Wednesday there was no word forthcoming from Christian World Adoption,
and his flight plans called for him to fly back the next day,
Thanksgiving. I spoke with our daughter Tuesday evening, learned of the
situation, and immediately called Christian World Adoption in Wando, SC
, on Wednesday morning. To my shock and dismay, no one answered. They
had elected to close the office a day early for the Thanksgiving
holiday. I then called Tommy Lee Harding's home and received a voice
mail message. Now I was becoming desperate. I then redialed the office
and listened to the voice mail menu of staff. By calling three times
and replaying the list I generated five or six names. I dialed
directory assistance in South Carolina trying to match people from my
list with names and addresses in the immediate area, all to no avail. I
never spoke to anyone.
    Here you have a situation, in which clients are on site in a
foreign country, with questions, concerns, maybe problems, that require
professional help, and you have no way to communicate with anyone at
headquarters. They just decided to close and take an extra day off!
    I wanted to include this cameo as just one more bit of evidence to
consider when listening to the parade of expert witnesses you will hear
from in the adoption agency industry.
    Thank you.
            Respectfully submitted,
                               Steven F. Whiteside.
                               __________
To: Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Chairman, Jesse Helms,
Date: October 3, 1999.

RE: International Adoption

    We support S. 682 and would like to submit our story to you for
consideration when you are considering S. 682.
    My name is Lydia Pfeffer and I am an attorney who has attempted
three adoptions and successfully completed two adoptions from Russia.
The purpose of this letter is to discuss the need for a consistent and
effective way to regulate the practice of international adoption. A
common misconception amongst prospective families is that if an agency
is licensed there is some protection against fraud, deceit, and other
gross misconduct. Nothing is further from the truth we have found. When
we confronted the licensing division in California with evidence of
fraud from several families their response was it was a civil matter
and they were of no help. It is financially and logistically
prohibitive for an out of state family to locate an appropriate
attorney to handle a ``wrongful adoption'' case from out of state. The
result over and over is the adoption agency wins and the consumer
loses.
    We hired an agency in California to adopt a 12 year old Russian
girl. We went to Russia to meet her and the child agreed to the
adoption. Consent is required by a Russian child 10 years and older.
When we returned 2 months later to go to court the child said she had a
boyfriend at the orphanage and she didn't want to be adopted. When we
returned to the states and asked for our money back (because the
adoption failed due to no fault of our own) the agency director said,
``we never promised you a child'', and kept approximately $5000.
    The stories are endless of families being lied to regarding known
medical conditions of the children, undisclosed fees that surface alter
the contract is signed, and other deceitful acts. We ask that adoption
agencies be supervised and held accountable for their unethical and
illegal practices by their licensing division, state attorney general,
or other regulatory office.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                 Lydia Pfeffer, JD.
                               __________
Chairman Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Date: September 30, 1999.

RE: International Adoption

    We support S. 682 and would like to submit our story to you for
consideration when you are considering S. 682. It is imperative that
adoption agencies, lawyers and other child placing agencies be held
responsible for their actions. There should be recourse for families if
an agency is found to be unethical, irresponsible and or fraudulent.
    Our Story:

          We adopted a 12 year old girl through Nightlight
        International Adoptions, Inc. of CA, in October 97. We had
        heard good reports and were confident that all would go well
        since Nightlight seemed to have such a good track record and
        informative psychological reports.
          We have 3 other children adopted from other countries and are
        experienced parents. Due to where we lived at the time (outside
        US in a remote locale), we were clear about what we could and
        could NOT deal with post placement. No services, limited school
        resources, etc.
          Despite very specific questions prior to picking up Inga,
        some crucial facts were NOT disclosed to us. We were shocked to
        learn that she had been placed with 2 Russian families and
        brought back to the home. In addition, she could not read or
        write Russian (at the age of 12!). She was a smoker! AND, she
        was a habitual runner. She had a history of being picked up by
        the police and brought back to the home. Had we known any one
        of these facts prior to traveling, we would not have proceeded.
        Inga was not appropriately prepared for us to pick her up,
        either. The workers feel that adoption is in the ``best
        interest'' of the child and apparently avoided the necessary
        emotional preparation for fear of tantrums or resistance from
        Inga.
          To make a very long story short, our family was devastated
        and we struggled to make things work for almost a year. We
        traveled back to the states in the summer of '98 and placed
        Inga with another family willing to work with her. She went
        through 6 families and 2 hospitalizations. All of these
        families were older, more experienced, and very successful at
        parenting ```difficult'' and ``hard to place'' older children.
        None of them could parent her. We researched all available
        resources in the US. We accessed family therapy, special
        education, post adoptive support groups, and a variety of
        specialists. We reached the lifetime limit on our health
        insurance coverage. We contacted the Russian judge in an
        attempt to dissolve the adoption. We pled with Nightlight to
        take some responsibility.
          We are currently trying to release our parental rights and
        make Inga a ward of the state so she can get the treatment she
        needs which we cannot provide. We are truly emotionally,
        physically and financially depleted. This has been a tragic
        story for us, many other people, and most sadly, Inga.
        Furthermore, Nightlight has been reluctant to admit ANY
        responsibility whatsoever for their neglect in accessing
        pertinent, easily available information. Nightlight has even
        stated that they can't be responsible for families who are
        ``not satisfied'' with the children they adopt. To be sure they
        have made other successful placements, but in our case they
        were neglectful in obtaining very essential facts, and now, 2
        years later, Inga is in a residential psychiatric treatment
        center with a diagnosis of ``major depressive disorder,
        psychosis, and post traumatic stress syndrome.'' Their
        recommendation is 9 more months of residential treatment and
        then a group home.
          Clearly, we would have avoided much of this heartache and
        tragedy if consumer protection laws pertaining to international
        adoption had been in place. I would be happy to speak with you
        in more detail if you would like.
                Sincerely,
                                 Cilia J. Whatcott.
                               __________
                              Mary Mooney, Founder,
                             Adoption Advocates of America,
                                       Consumer Protection Network.
RE: S. 682

    Senator Helms we would like to take this opportunity to submit
testimony for the senate hearing on bill S. 682.
    Our organization started as a support group for families that had
experienced failed or difficult adoptions. We found that most of our
experiences were due to unethical and unprofessional adoption agencies,
lawyers and or facilitators. We all felt that our cases should have
been taken on by the Attorney General of our state. We all felt our
justice system failed us. Many of us had hired agencies licensed by
their state. This gave us a false sense of security. Many of us found
out that even if an agency is licensed by the state it does not mean
the agency is a good agency. We found that most state adoption
licensing divisions don't even keep up with complaints or even
investigate complaints.
    Many agencies have broken criminal and civil laws, yet there is no
one to prosecute these agencies. The foreign adoption business is a big
business. We feel that many American agencies are taking advantage of
unsuspecting families that are often desperate to adopt a child. These
agencies know that they have the upper hand. They have the children and
their client's money; therefore they call all the shots. They know that
all they have to say is jump and the families will ask how high.
    In light of the cases, which have been sent to you by some of our
members, grass-roots consumers of adoption services, we strongly
support S. 682. We believe your excellent legislation could be even
better if it included all or part of legislation introduced by
Representative Trafficant.
            Sincerely,
                                       Mary Mooney.

    Our Story:

          We spent over 10 years of trying to adopt in North Carolina
        through our County Dept. of Social Services and The Children's
        Home Society. We completed a homestudy and followed all the
        rules. Only after 2 years did we realized that it would be
        almost impossible to adopt a child this way. We turned to
        international adoption in May of 1995. We researched
        international adoption and found it to be very popular and
        there seemed to be many success stories. We looked all over the
        US for an adoption agency. We wanted to deal with some one
        local. Finally we found a licensed NC agency and felt very
        happy with them. This agency made us feel that they would
        personally be involved in every aspect of our adoption. They
        assured us all would work out within 6 months and we would have
        a healthy little boy in our home very soon. They showed us
        pictures of cute children and assured us they had many children
        to choose from.
          What was supposed to be a wonderful experience turned in to
        our worst nightmare. What seemed to be an organized agency
        turned out to be very unorganized agency. Nobody seemed to ever
        know what was going on, what papers we needed or when we would
        travel. When we did travel to Russia the child was not
        available for us to adopt. What we found was the US agency had
        hired a very unethical and ``known'' adoption facilitator that
        had a bad reputation all over the US.
          The agency felt they had done nothing wrong. They would not
        help us to recoup our money or would not even offer to assist
        us in another adoption. Or worse, they did not even apologize.
        We found the NC Adoption Licensing Division to be no help.
        Local law enforcement was no help. The NC Attorney General
        stated it was a matter to be handled by the NC Adoption
        Licensing Division. The Licensing Division stated they have no
        way of keeping up with complaints and felt it was not their
        place or job to investigate complaints. They also stated that
        since the adoption was an international adoption that would not
        come under their care anyway. There was no one that would even
        listen to our story.
          Because of our problems I went to the Internet to seek
        support. I found tremendous support and found many other
        families that had similar problems through out the US. I
        started a web page at http://www.ncplaza.com/aaguide/ to give
        people a place to voice their opinions of their adoption agency
        or worker. Since then I have had such a large response I moved
        the site to a new address http://www.theadoptionguide.com. I
        make no money from this site but spend countless hours E-
        mailing with devastated families that are in need of emotional
        support. I only wish I had the knowledge to give them the legal
        advice they need.
          State adoption licensing divisions do not have any legal
        authority even if they had the resources to investigate a
        complaint they do not have any authority to bring a law
        complaint against an agency.
          What I have seen over the years is adoption agencies open and
        close at the drop of a hat. They close one place and move to
        another state to open again under another name. Many agencies
        change states and names often. Some agencies don't even try to
        get licensed and are not found out unless a family reports
        them. And if they are called on by state licensing division
        they just close up and move to another state.
          In our case we were lucky to find an attorney that would take
        our case. We filed a law complaint against this agency for
        fraud and unethical practices. After 2 years we settled out of
        court. We never recovered any of the $7,800 that we paid to the
        facilitator. As part of the settlement we are not allowed to
        speak about this agency.
          I have found that if a family is able to find an attorney and
        they can afford to pursue legal action the agencies will either
        settle out of court or the family will get a judgment against
        the agency that is usually never paid. Sadly most of the
        stories I hear have a very sad ending. Because these families
        have lost so much money they do not have the money to try and
        adopt again. Many have borrowed against their homes or from
        family members. This could be avoided if the adoption industry
        were more regulated and accountable for their actions.
          With S. 682 you have the opportunity to reform the adoption
        laws to protect innocent families.
                Respectfully,
                                    Mary M. Mooney.

                               <greek-d>



Dr. Ronald Federici is an American neuro-psychologist who specialises in working with institutionalized children (he has spent a good deal of time in orphanages in Eastern Europe, and has fostered seven of the orphans himself). Federici believes that what disturbed children need most are rules, structure, and a sense of order imposed on confused emotions and he has devised a treatment plan for even the most extreme cases of conduct-disordered children.

He claims it is suitable no matter whether their behaviour lies in neurological or psychological problems and that it guarantees two things: firstly, that there will be an 80% rate of improvement in most children; and secondly, that neither the parents nor the children will enjoy the process – quite the opposite, in fact.

Dr. Federici is based in McLean, Virginia. He is the founder of Advocates for Children in Therapy (ACT).

Adoption Unit/Immigrant Visa Section
Consular Section
American Embassy
Kyiv, Ukraine
Tel: 38-044-4904422
Fax: 38-044-490-4570
Kyivadoptions@state.gov

Dr. Ronald Federici has extensive experience in helping adopted children from Ukraine.

In the early 1990s, along with the influx of Romanian adoptees into the U.S. came the term “institutional autism.” Dr. Ron Federici, a neuropsychologist was instrumental in using this term to describe children from Romanian orphanages who exhibited autistic-like behaviors that seem to have resulted from the deprivation and isolation associated with living in an institution.

Ronald Steven Federici is often described as “the country’s expert in the neuropsychological evaluation and treatment of children having multi-sensory neurodevelopmental impairments.”

He is best described as a “developmental neuropsychologist,” specializing in the treatment of “institutional autism” (which he also calls “post-traumatic autism,” or “post-institutional autistic syndrome”).

Dr. Federici is licensed by the Virginia Board, and is the holder of a Psy. D. degree.

Dr. Ronald Federici is the author of “Help for the Hopeless Child: A Guide for Families, With Special Discussion for Assessing and Treating the Post-Institutionalized Child” and is the founder of Neuropsychological and Family Practice Associates, in McLean, Virginia.

He has worked with adopted children from Russia, Romania, Ukraine and Belarus. He is also the father to seven adopted children of his own.

Federici is also an outspoken opponent of dangerous practices, such as those resulting in the death of Candace Newmaker. In addition, he has also sought to provide as much assistance as possible to children living in orphanages and other institutions with deplorable conditions.

More information about Dr. Federici and his work can be found at:

http://ronaldfederici.wordpress.com (Ronald Federici blog)

http://ronfederici.wordpress.com (Ron Federici blog)

http://childrenintherapy.wordpress.com (Children in Therapy)

http://advocatesforchildrenintherapy.wordpress.com (Advocates for Children in Therapy)

http://angelinajolieadoptions.wordpress.com (Angelina Jolie’s adoptions; Dr. Federici is Angelina Jolie’s adoption consultant)

Ronald Federici, a neuropsychologist and author of Help for the Hopeless Child, says he has seen too many naive American parents being extorted for money by the relatives of their adopted children.”The majority of the cases I’ve dealt with have been disasters,” he says.In some cases, he says, the adoptees are traumatized again when they find out their siblings are living on the street or their birth mother doesn’t want to see them.

He says one client, a stockbroker, sent $5,000 a month to a Romanian orphanage to help the siblings of his adopted children but later found out that the orphanage director was pocketing the money.

Federici says reunions can be valuable for children like Ruslan who were adopted when they were older and had clear attachments to a sibling.

“It’s not always the healing, holistic factor some would think,” says Federici, who knows where all the siblings are of the seven children he adopted from Eastern Europe are.He says his kids, now 18 to 25, have “no desire” to meet them, although one visits her birth mother in Belarus.

June 14, 2006 | 6:42 p.m. ET

Fighting for Dane and other troubled kids — a personal note  (Olive Talley, Dateline producer)

As the producer of this piece, I’d like to introduce you to a behind-the-scenes expert who was critical in helping us tell the story of Dane and his family. In fact, it was Karyn Purvis who introduced us to the Jones family.

Just like the so-called horse whisperer, who turns the feral horse into a calm, trusting animal, Karyn Purvis does the same thing with kids. Those of us who have watched her work call her the Child Whisperer.

The first time I saw Karyn in action was at a summer camp at Texas Christian University called The Hope Connection, a respite for adopted kids who were at risk for being institutionalized because of their severe behavioral problems. The camp originally was designed as a research project by Karyn, then a doctoral student at TCU and her psychology professor, Dr. David Cross.

But this was no ordinary camp full of giggling, playful children. All the children here had suffered some level of abuse, neglect and deprivation before they were adopted and brought to America. Some had been rescued from deplorable conditions in foreign orphanages, while others had come out of domestic adoptions through child welfare authorities. As a result, they all had emotional and behavioral problems. Dane Jones was one of them.

I was there as a guest with Dr. Ron Federici, who consulted with TCU and helped evaluate many of the “camp kids.” Suddenly, as we were watching the counselors lead the kids through songs, dances and tumbling, one of the kids went WILD in the middle of a play room. A darling blue-eyed, 7-year-old Russian girl erupted in a whirl of kicking, thrashing, and screaming. Her little blonde curls began to drip with sweat as she flailed and swung her arms and legs in an out-of-control rage that frankly scared the heck out of me.

I watched in awe as Karyn firmly, but calmly pulled the raging child into her lap, cradling and rocking her and speaking to her in soft, soothing tones. With equal doses of patience, love, and leadership, she brought the child to an emotional landing where she felt enough safety and comfort to relax and let go of the rage. The 30-minute ordeal ended with the child sobbing and melting into Karyn’s snuggling arms. I will never forget the scene of the two of them walking away, hand-in-hand in search of gum. Much later, Karyn determined that the child had suffered a flashback to her own baby’s sister’s drowning after seeing another child at camp who reminded her of her sister.

Karyn is a former foster parent, a mother of three boys, a grandmother of six — two of whom are adopted. After raising her family, Karyn Purvis went back to school and got her doctorate degree and now heads TCU’s Institute for Child Development.

“We want to understand why children who suffer severe abuse and neglect in their early years have so much trouble developing normally,” Karyn said. “And we believe we’re making good headway.”

“Our work has confirmed that these children’s aggressive behaviors are fear based. We see the fear, the mental illness and anger disappear when we give them tools, such as words instead of physical violence and anger, to deal with the pain and fear,” Karyn said in a recent article featuring TCU’s work. “We think the greatest thing we can do is create an environment where they feel safe.”

Karyn worked closely with Dr. Federici in the home program for the Jones that we featured on Dateline. They credit his amazing work, but she and  Dr. David Cross have subsequently expanded into other research areas and developed their own parent-coach therapy program that emphasizes nurturing as much as structure. Just like the Jones’ credit Federici for helping them with Dane, many other parents credit Karyn with saving their families. You can read more about this in the articles below.

After our story originally aired in June 2003, Dateline, the Jones’ family, Dr. Federici, and TCU received thousands of emails from parents with kids just like Dane. And while most of them said they felt more hopeful after watching our piece, they were desperate for help and direction.

Debbie Jones, Dr. Federici and Karyn Purvis agree that the answer lies with the parents themselves — changing their attitudes and embracing news ways of dealing with their kids and providing a safe and nurturing place for their kids to develop. There’s no “quick fix” with a pill or a punishment.

“We believe that empowered parents can become healers for even the most disturbed children,” Karyn said.

“To those parents who are struggling, I want to say don’t ever give up!” Debbie Jones told Dateline. “You are the key to helping your child. You will change as much or more than your special child. There are many questionable therapies and program or boot camps you could send your child to, expecting someone else to ‘fix’ your kid. But that’s not the solution.”

“I encourage you to keep your child with you and commit to sticking together as a family and getting the right help to learn how to get through all the challenge, frustration, grief, and fatigue that comes with it,” she said. “It’s the hardest thing you’ll ever do, but it’s worth it.”

To read more about the work of Dr. Purvis and TCU’s Institute for Child Development, go to:

* www.magazine.tcu.edu/articles/2006-01-cv.asp
* http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=169
* www.child.tcu.edu

To learn more about Dr. Ronald Federici and his work, go to his websites: www.drfederici.com, ronaldfederici.wordpress.com, childrenintherapy.wordpress.com, and advocatesforchildrenintherapy.wordpress.com

To find other parents facing similar dilemmas, go to the Parents Network for the Post Institutionalized Child website at: www.pnpic.org

Neuropsychological and Family Therapy Associates Developmental-Pediatric Neuropsychologist Diplomate-American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABPN) Diplomate-American Board of Medical Psychotherapists (ABMP) Diplomate-Fellow in Advanced Psychopharmacology (FICPP) Fellow-American College of Professional Neuropsychology Senior Fellow-National Academy of Neuropsychology Diplomate-American Board of Disability Analysts (ABDA) Diplomate-American Board of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapists Author: “Help For The Hopeless Child: A Guide For Families (With Special Discussion for Evaluating and Treating the Post-Institutionalized Child), Second Edition, 2004

AgenFax.IT, quotidiano di informazione e cultura di Alessandria e del Nord Ovest Italia – IL SINDACO MASSIMO FEDERICI NELLA CITTA’ PALESTINESE GEMELLATA CON LA SPEZIA

7/5) – Il sindaco della Spezia Massimo Federici è in visita a Jenin, la città palestinese con cui La Spezia ha un patto di amicizia e con la quale è in corso un importante progetto di cooperazione rivolto soprattutto ai giovani.

profughi e la sede di un’ associazione che si occupa di bambini non

Il programma prevede la costituzione a Jenin di un gruppo di

Fonte:
http://www.agenfax.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23029&Itemid=240

Dr. Ronald Federici has many satisfied clients, this is a typical testimonial:

“Hi Dr. Ron,

Alex Up-date:

After talking to you by phone, we upped the Ablilify from 20mg. to 30 mg. daily; soon found out this dose a little too much, so cut back to 15mg.

Abilify in a.m./ 10 mg. at bedtime.

Lexapro still needed at 2.5mg./a.m. only.

This combo, along with Omega -3 a.m./p.m., Melatonin 3mg. /bedtime, and daily vitamin, seems to be working quite well for the last month.

Alex’s IEP Annual Review was last week. The principal and all staff at his school had very positive praise for him! Alex got straight A’s in both Academics and in Effort! His behavior on his Individual Behavior Plan is at the 97% level! The principal calls Alex his “idea man”, a model student, and a leader for his peers! He says that Alex looks him in the eye now, engaging the principal in conversation – a lot of progress for the Alex you examined a 1.5 years ago! Thank you, Dr. Ron, for helping us with your love of children, your program of hope, and for helping us “stay the course” when we were desperate for some help!!!

Sincerely,
Al & Chris”